Can you look at this map and say Israel does not systemically appropriate land?

"Palästina - Monatsschrift für den Aufbau Palästinas" (monthly magazine for the building up of Palestine) had a report in its October/November 1929 issue about the statistics of the population in Palestine. (It was a lecture by Dr. A. Katznelson from the health department of the Zionist Executive in Jerusalem, which he hold in 1928 in Cairo)





According to those numbers, the Muslim population diminished between 1922 and 1927 (as did the Christian)


The following statistic is about the number of women to 100 men.

Interesting, but my point here is that the author distinguishes between Palestinians, namely "Nichtjuden" and "Juden" (non-Jews and Jews)

It isn't surprising that a Zionist author would refer to the inhabitants of what Zionists called Palestine, as Palestinians, prior to significant Jewish colonization migration in 1904. And it isn't surprising that a British government agency would use the term thus in 1928, since the British used the term during the Mandate period to refer to local residents regardless of ethnicity, place of origin, or religion: though note that in the Mandate, under the terms of the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement of 1922, Arab Palestine existed only West of the river Jordan.

We already know that Jews called themselves Palestinians (they founded the Palestine Post in 1932). The question is whether local Arabs commonly referred to themselves as Palestinians in the period between the two world wars. Nothing you've posted in the comment to which this is a reply demonstrates that.

By contrast, it's easy to show that as a term for an Arab people applied by an Arab people, the Palestinian National Charter of 1968 defines the term and places it in common circulation. I daresay it was used by them before this, but it wasn't common in self application between the wars, so far as I know. Don't forget that the term was favored by both Zionists and the British government which supported them, so it was scarcely something local Arabs had either a longstanding or favored view of. Please tell me where in Arab writings of the periods of Muslim rule that it was called Palestine by its rulers.

I don't speak Arab (nor Turkish or Hebrew) and can't read it either.

The Jewish population increased by 470,000 between World War I and World War II, while the non-Jewish population rose by 588,000. In fact, the permanent Arab population increased 120 percent between 1922 and 1947.

This rapid growth of the Arab population was a result of several factors. One was immigration from neighboring states—constituting 37 percent of the total immigration to pre-state Israel—by Arabs who wanted to take advantage of the higher standard of living the Jews had made possible.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths3/MFmandate.html

You can also find a table of Jewish immigration by year here, and a broader discussion of the issue. The quote above is supported by linked footnotes there.

In 2000-2001 Israel did not have a Likud government. They had a Labor government that was trying to negotiate a two-state solution.

The Palestinians responded to the negotiations by massacring innocent Israelis until the Labor government collapsed and the Israelis elected Ariel Sharon to protect them.

Ariel Sharon tried a new tactic. Since the Palestinians had no interest in negotiating, he would try pulling back unilaterally and let them form their state on their own.

The Palestinians responded to the unilateral pullout from Gaza by turning it into a platform for firing artillery at Israeli civilians (thereby ending the unilateral pullout scheme).

After Ariel Sharon slipped into a coma, Ehud Olmert tried negotiating again. This time the Palestinians did nothing but stonewall the negotiations.

Likud did not take power until Benjamin Netanyahu was elected in 2009.

Even if it were true that Mr. Netanyahu was not interested in peace with the Palestinians, the only reason the Palestinians are currently facing a Likud government is because they've consistently refused to make peace with all the previous non-Likud governments. Israeli voters are sick of all the Palestinian mind games, and they've elected their government accordingly.

And if the Israeli voters ever felt that the Palestinians were finally interested in making peace, if Mr. Netanyahu proved to be an obstacle to that peace the Israeli voters would replace him with someone else.

The "Palästina" was published between 1902 and 1938.
Die jüdische Presse - Centralorgan des Misrach (a weekly Jewish paper) run sublements 1885, called "The Colonisation of Palestine"

etc etc



Thank you. I'd never heard of or read that.
(I only knew about the Faisal–Weizmann Agreement from 1919, and that it surved jus a few weeks. And I know,of course, about the 1922 British Mandate for Palestine.)

Might be so. Seems, the German Jewish media of that period had relied on different figures.

"One Israel" was not a labor party, it was a center-left coalition of parties. Furthermore:

"Although Barak won the Prime Ministerial election comfortably, his One Israel alliance won only 26 seats, meaning he had to form a convoluted coalition with Shas, Meretz, Yisrael BaAliyah, the Centre Party, the National Religious Party and United Torah Judaism."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_general_election,_1999

Note that Likud had been in power under Netanyahu and had contributed to the breakdown in negotiations with the Palestinians as well as various provocations leading to the Second Intifada which broke out in October of 2000. Ehud Barak didn't form a new government until July 1999 and because of the small number of Knesset seats won by his coalition, was impotent from the start. His government collapsed in December 2000, after which Sharon formed a new government in the following March.

I'll deal with the second part of your comment separately.

Discussions of illegal Arab immigration to Palestine suffer some of the same constraints as do discussions of illegal Mexican and Central American immigration into the United States. Estimates vary depending on the source and period and sorting it all out is virtually a scholarship specialty in itself. Hence my cautious phrasing "may have" regarding the size of this vis a vis Jewish immigration of the period.

It was an alliance of the Labor Party, Meimad and Gesher, not a coalition.

Actually, all Israeli governments were coalition governments besides between 22.11.1995 and 18.06.1996, when Perez formed a Labor government.

oralloy wrote: "After Ariel Sharon slipped into a coma, Ehud Olmert tried negotiating again. This time the Palestinians did nothing but stonewall the negotiations."

Not so: Olmert got along well with the Palestinian Authority of the West Bank, as shown by the Annapolis Conference of 2007:

"A joint understanding, read by US president George Bush, stated that "In furtherance of the goal of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security" the parties agreed to"immediately launch good-faith bilateral negotiations in order to conclude a peace treaty, resolving all outstanding issues, including all core issues without exception, as specified in previous agreements". A steering committee would meet from 12 December 2007, followed by biweekly negotiations between President Abbas and Prime Minister Olmert.

"The parties also committed to immediately implement their respective obligations under the Roadmap for peace and to continue the implementation of it until they had reached a peace treaty, to be concluded before the end of 2008."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annapolis_Conference

It was Hamas (primarily in Gaza) that responded to peace overtures with unremitting violence. That was when Olmert targeted their leadership.

oralloy: " Likud did not take power until Benjamin Netanyahu was elected in 2009."

As noted above, Likud was in power under Netanyahu until the Barak government was formed in July 1999; Barak's coalition was powerless in the Knesset and collapsed in December 2000. Sharon of Likud formed a new government in March 2001. Though nominally a coalition government, Likud with PM Sharon's help dominated, and the Labor Party pulled out in 2002. The new government under Sharon was a Likud dominated coalition with other right wing parties. When in 2004 Sharon decided on disengagement including withdrawal of settlements in Gaza, his right wing coalition allies deserted him. He brought Labor back in then started his own party, Kadima.

As noted above, when Olmert took over his government made excellent and quick progress with the Palestinians of Fatah; it was Hamas that became the spoiler.

Hamas was culpable, not Olmert. But when Netanyahu and Likud retook power, Likud and Hamas became jointly culpable for pursuing the joint policy of no peace settlement and no Palestinian state.

An alliance of political parties participating in a government jointly = a "coalition" in my book, and that's standard nomenclature in English usage.

Here's an idea for solving the Middle East problem:

Fatah and Hamas are (sometimes deadly) competitors. Israel should recognize the Palestinian Authority as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people (whether it is or not) and recognize/create an independent Palestinian state consisting of the West Bank. The Gaza Strip would retain its current status.

The vast monies Israel spends on the conflict should be poured into making the West Bank economically prosperous. Trade to and from the new Palestinian state should be completely free. In exchange, get Fatah to commit to a joint security agreement with Israel vis a vis Hamas activities on the territory of the new state (West Bank). With Israel holding the purse strings, cooperation should be possible. Naturally, economic assistance will include kickbacks to Fatah leadership. Make sure there is plenty of clean, appealing new housing to accommodate the Gazan immigrants to the West Bank, courtesy of Israeli construction contractors.

Sit back and watch Palestinian residents of Gaza immigrate next door into the prosperous and independent new Palestinian state, until Hamas collapses in their ghost-town. At that time, conduct a general plebiscite ratifying Fatah political governance over Gaza and expand the borders of the new Palestinian state to include the unified territory; not so difficult if good times are there for Palestinians thanks to the Israeli sugar daddy. Train Fatah to economic competence and use trade to wean the new state slowly.

This is just the opposite of the Likud policy of divide and conquer, which seeks to perpetuate schism by playing off Fatah and Hamas against one another without empowering either.

This slipped past me:

Walter Hinteler wrote:

"Thank you. I'd never heard of or read that. (I only knew about the Faisal–Weizmann Agreement from 1919, and that it surved jus a few weeks. And I know,of course, about the 1922 British Mandate for Palestine.)"

My apologies, I meant to refer to the Palestine White Paper of 1922:

"The whole of Palestine west of the Jordan was thus excluded from Sir. Henry McMahon's pledge."

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/brwh1922.asp

P.S. Looks like in my earlier comment re Arab Palestine I said "west" of the river Jordan instead of east. In idiomatic American English this is known as a "brain-fart". I don't know if Walter Hinteler can tell me what the German equivalent to this term is, if there is one.

Now you are referring to a 'white paper' by Churchill, something very different to an "agreement".

The borders of Palestine were not defined in the texts of the Balfour Declaration of 1917, nor The San Remo conference, nor The Treaty of Sèvres, the Treaty of Lausanne, and even not by the British Mandate for Palestine.

I'm relatively fluent in German.
The German 'Hirnfurz' has a different meaning to the English translation brain fart.

I too wish the Israelis could behave rationally once in a while.

Meaning the Israeli government?
I'm not believing that all Israelis think genocide is a good thing.

I also think it's a very bad idea that military aid is given to a nation/state that has nuclear weapons, but isn't a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, or in any way under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Israel's admin jumps up and down about any kind of nuclear activity in Iran, while denying anyone entry to their own nuclear facilities/arsenal.

Hypocrisy much?

Likud is not in any way responsible for the Palestinians' refusal to make peace with Ehud Barak, or the Palestinians' decision to run around massacring innocent people when he offered them peace.



Ehud Barak attempted to negotiate with the Palestinians, and got noting but waves of murders in response.

His government collapsed primarily because the Israelis needed the massacres to stop.