[DSingularity]

Well, you actually don’t know the facts. Did Jews live there before the British? Yes. But what you don’t mention is that they were under 8% of the total population. Of course, given what you already omit, you also omit that those 8% owned only 2% of the land. So tell me, why would the 92% accept that so much of what is rightfully theirs would be forcefully taken from them and given to a minority population? Especially when, at this point in 1947, so many of them were settlers who emigrated from Europe to colonize Palestinian land.

But you know, for someone who claims to know the facts, it sure seems like you are purposefully spreading disinformation.

[slg]

I don't know where your numbers are coming from, but they are at the very least misleading because the population was not exclusively made up of Jews and the group we now call Palestinians and not all land was privately owned.

EDIT: I rephrased this to more clearly explain my point.

[sudosysgen]

I don't understand your argument. Jewish Palestinians plus non-Jewish Palestinians do make up 100% of Palestinians.

[slg]

Oops, I made that more confusing by trying to note everyone was a Palestinian when the place was called Palestine. By "non-Jewish Palestinians" I was trying to refer to the predominately Muslim and predominately Arab group that we now just call Palestinians. There was and still is a population of Christians in the area and there presumably was some larger population of foreigners in the area when it was under foreign rule. I edited that comment to clear things up.

[sudosysgen]

Everyone is still a Palestinian nowadays though.

The reason why there are less Christian Palestinians is because a lot of them were deported or fled shortly after the Nakba.

A lot of them would come back if Palestine was restored, but most of them are legally prevented by Israel from coming back.

Not even Hamas or Hezbollah wants Palestine to be a single religion or single ethnicity state, so I don't really understand what you were trying to convey.

[benja123]

The Christian population in the Christian towns of the Westbank (Bethlehem) and in Gaza have been decreasing steadily for the past 70 years - this has nothing to do with the occupation of the Westbank and Gaza and everything to do with persecution by the local population. This trend is not confined to just the Westbank and Gaza and is in fact a trend that is occurring across the entire Middle East where in the past 100 years the Christian population has decreased from 20% of the population to approximately 5% of the population.

[DSingularity]

If by persecution by the locals you mean the Jewish Israelis — sure. But if you are trying to imply that the Muslim Arabs persecuted the Christians get out of here.

By wide margins the European Christian crusaders killed more Arab Christians then any other ethnic group. Palestinian Christians and Muslims have coexisted for a long, long time. To the point that the holiest of Christian churches are often entrusted to Muslim custodianship. How else would you explain that?

[sudosysgen]

Have you ever been in Gaza or the Westbank?

How these places work is that if you leave, you can never come back.

These places are awful to live in. The only people that stay there stay because they don't have a choice or for ideological reasons. That's why Christians leave moreso, they often have family that left and can get refugee status more easily.

The trend of Christians leaving is a highly localized trend. The greatest number of Christians left not everywhere in the Middle East, but in Iraq, Syria, and, a while ago, Turkey.

The events in the last sixty years that contributed the most to Christian emigration were the Lebanese civil war, the Iraq war, the Syrian Civil War, and the Nakba of 1948.

[slg]

I'm not going to get that deep into politics here. You are basically arguing for a one state solution except it is Palestinian run instead of Israeli run. HN probably isn't the place to have that debate.

[sudosysgen]

I wouldn't care if it was Palestinian run or Israeli run, if it was one or two states, as long as its peaceful and democratic.

What I care about are factually wrong and misleading statements.

[belorn]

You would have land owned by Jewish Palestinians, land owned by non-Jewish Palestinians, and land cooperatively owned by both Jewish and non-Jewish Palestinians. Jewish Palestinians plus non-Jewish Palestinians do not make up 100% of Palestinians, but rather the result of 100% minus land cooperatively owned by both Jewish and non-Jewish Palestinians.

[sudosysgen]

You're confusing land and people here.

[belorn]

DSingularity above is talking about 2% owning 8% of the land, with "92% accept that so much of what is rightfully theirs would be forcefully taken from them".

If you are saying I am confusing land and people, what is the 2% and 8% number referring to in the above comment? People and land? If so, what people, and what land?

[DSingularity]

At the time of the British mandate the Jewish minority — 2% of the population — owned a total of 8% of the land. So, my point was, why do you blame the Arabs for not accepting the partition plan which came to impose a forceful transfer of land from the majority to the minority. When you consider the facts you can clearly see why the Palestinians opposed the initial partition plan of Palestine.