[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.

[belorn]

Yes, but then my initial comment above about the Jewish population and the arab population is not confusing land and people. The Jewish population owned 2%, and the arab population owned X amount of land, while Y amount of land was owned cooperatively by individuals of both. It would be interesting to know what X and Y is.

The partitioning of land was obviously unfair after world war 2. I doubt anyone actually disagree with it. Land getting repossessed and captured during wars is never fair, and it was not the only border change that occurred when the world war ended. The allies did not just keep the borders at they were at the beginning of ww2, through much of the land grabs has been mostly forgotten outside of people studying history. The Israeli–Palestinian conflict is one of the few remaining land conflicts from the war.

[DSingularity]

Its not just a land conflict from the war though. This is different than the way you are painting it -- that some British officer threw up his hands and said "I don't know whose land this is, here you have it".

If you look at the history of this area, what happened was Jewish terrorist groups (haganah[2], lehi[3], Irgun[4]) started going around murdering Palestinian villagers[1]. When the Palestinian villagers ran the Zionists settled their lands.The land and property was stolen from the Palestinians. They were terrorized into fleeing their lands and were never allowed to return!

So somehow, in the modern day when we all know this as fact, we are supposed to just accept that these people and all their dependents are condemned to eternal refugee status? Thats not the worse part. While the Palestinians are condemned as refugees any random Jewish people born in Europe or America are allowed to emigrate to Israel to settle those lands. This is why Israel is an Apartheid state.

How is this not absurd and how is it moral?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haganah [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehi_(militant_group) [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irgun

[belorn]

I never said "that some British officer threw up his hands and said "I don't know whose land this is, here you have it"."

Land and property was stolen after world war 2 by the allied. History has painted most of that as being acceptable because the Nazis was bad and the allied good and so anything that occurred after victory was good. Land and property was stolen and the people who lived there were forced to fleeing their lands and to never be allowed to return.

For most of those, yes, we are supposed to just accept that those people and all their dependents are condemned to eternal refugee status. It seems that most conceded land has simply been accepted as belonging to the victors as any person who actually lived there is now dead given that it been almost 100 years. What makes the Palestinians situation a bit more unique among conceded land is that the people actually did not get removed a 100 years ago and so the conflict is still alive today. People are trying to remove them today.

As a concrete example of conceded land, Finland conceded much more land to Russia than the area size of Gaza, and the Finnish population (Karelians) had to flee while people from Ukraine, Belarus and Russia settled the captured land. Today the conceded Finnish land is still owned by Russia. The conflict is however pretty dead because Finland do not want to own a bunch of land where everyone is Russian-speaking, and the cost of bringing the standard of living to the same level as in Finland would be pretty expensive. Any descendant that used to live there will just have to accept it, and the idea of forcing out the Ukraine/Belarus/Russia descendants that live there today is so far away from reality that it thankfully does not exist.

In my own opinion, trying to find a solution based on who owned what a 100 years ago is unlikely to be productive. There was a world war, a lot of people died, and most everything about it was tragic except that the Nazis lost. The conflict today is not going to be solved by trying to fix history, but rather by finding a solution for those living there today.