-25 votes

My research shows that Israel bought their land.

please keep the discussion civil.

http://www.wildolive.co.uk/Stolen%20land.htm

A reliable account of the situation in Eretz Israel (the Land of Israel), which at that time was called Palestine, can be found in a 1937 report of the British Palestine Royal Commission which, as is well known, was not a friend of the Jews. The report says that the Hula Valley in the north of the country was infested with mosquitoes. The landowners were Syrians in Damascus, who leased out the marshes to Arab or Egyptian peasants (fellahs), who lived in primitive mud huts and inevitably fell sick with malaria.
The first thing the Jewish National Fund did in 1934 was to purchase 51 square miles of this marshland for 900,000 Palestinian pounds ($4.5 million) and set up 20 Jewish settlements on it. These Jews battled malaria, yellow fever and the Middle Eastern sun to drain the swamps and reclaim the land.
What the swamps were in the north, the desert, which had to be artificially irrigated, was in the south; and the center of the country was a stony, desolate wasteland. The Arab landlords, who lived abroad and owned large estates, did nothing to solve these problems.
The Turkish Ottoman Empire was in such a poor state after ruling over the Holy Land for 400 years (1517-1917), that wealthy Arab landowners from Syria, Egypt and Lebanon were able to kick out the fellahs and Bedouins and acquire enormous tracts of real estate. Then they made a huge profit by selling the land to Jews from Europe and America.
According to "Turkish government records, in 1915, 3,130,000 dunams of Palestinian land was owned by 144 Arab landowners; so on average, each family owned 22,000 dunams. From early times, the dunam was the only valid unit for measuring land area in Palestine. One dunam is 1,000 square meters and there are 4 dunams in an acre.
The farmers who leased the properties were forced to pay onerous interest rates to the Arab landlords of up to 60 percent, and many tenants were left destitute, losing both house and home. Ultimately, the Arab landowners drove out their Muslim brothers so that they could sell the land for large amounts of money to the Jews.
The Jewish National Fund set up blue and white (Israel's national colors) collection boxes all over the world and received generous contributions from Jewish patrons, which were used to buy property in the Holy Land. Of the 429,887 dunams that the Palestine Jewish Colonization Association purchased from private owners, 293,54 dunams almost 70 percent-was uncultivated land that Arab proprietors living abroad had sold to Jews.
By 1937, the amount purchased by Jews increased to 579,492 dunams, and by 1948 almost 80 percent of the land available for sale had been bought up by the Jewish people. The rest of the land was ownerless desert, which was taken over by Israel after the establishment of the state.
When the League of Nations handed the mandate over to Britain in 1922, it stipulated firmly in Article 6 that the "Palestine administration should work together with the Jewish Agency to encourage intensive settlement of the land by Jews, which should include the land owned by the state and the uncultivated or waste land, as long as this land is not needed for official purposes."
It is astonishing that nowadays nobody seems to be interested in the facts. While everyone has an opinion about this conflict, few take the trouble to check out how the Land of Israel legally became Jewish property. People prefer to embrace the stereotypical Palestinian lies which accuse the Jewish state of forcibly driving the Palestinians out of their homes, although this was mostly done by Arab landlords who cared nothing about "Palestine." Today, the Arab world is trying to push the "crimes" of their ancestors, who effectively "sold out" Palestine 80 years ago, onto the Jews and the State of Israel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_land_purchase_in_Palestine

The Ottoman Land Code of 1858 "brought about the appropriation by the influential and rich families of Beirut, Damascus, and to a lesser extent Jerusalem and Jaffa and other sub-district capitals, of vast tracts of land in Syria and Palestine and their registration in the name of these families in the land registers".[8] Many of the fellahin did not understand the importance of the registers and therefore the wealthy families took advantage of this. Jewish buyers who were looking for large tracts of land found it favorable to purchase from the wealthy owners. As well many small farmers became in debt to rich families which lead to the transfer of land to the new owners and then eventually to the Jewish buyers.

In 1918, after the British conquest of Palestine, the military administration closed the Land Register and prohibited all sale of land. The Register was reopened in 1920, but to prevent speculation and insure a livelihood for the fellahin, an edict was issued forbidding the sale of more than 300 dunams of land or the sale of land valued at more than 3000 Palestine pounds without the approval of the High Commissioner.[9]

From the 1880s to the 1930s, most Jewish land purchases were made in the coastal plain, the Jezreel Valley, the Jordan Valley and to a lesser extent the Galilee.[8] This was due to a preference for land that was cheap and without tenants.[8] There were two main reasons why these areas were sparsely populated. The first reason being when the Ottoman power in the rural areas began to diminish in the seventeenth century, many people moved to more centralized areas to secure protection against the lawless Bedouin tribes.[8] The second reason for the sparsely populated areas of the coastal plains was the soil type. The soil, covered in a layer of sand, made it impossible to grow the staple crop of Palestine, corn.[8] As a result this area remained uncultivated and under populated.[4] "The sparse Arab population in the areas where the Jews usually bought their land enabled the Jews to carry out their purchase without engendering a massive displacement and eviction of Arab tenants".[8]

In the 1930s most land was bought from small landowners. Of the land that the Jews bought, "52.6% of the lands were bought from big non-Palestinian landowners, 24.6% from Palestinian-Arab landowners and only 9.4% from the Fellahin".[10]



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

land ownership statistics

Some statistics about arab and Jewish land ownership. http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/10/26/the-myth-of-t....

is it ok to not...

Give a shit? All I have to know is that I am robbed by force to the benefit of others whom I have no connection to or whom I benefit not from. I could give a rat's ass who started what beyond the fact that I am the one who ends up being penalized.

There is no doubt that many

There is no doubt that many Jews, especially early on (pre-1948) bought a lot of land in Palestine. But that does not defend 1) the taking of land that they didn't buy or 2) justify the institution of a distinctly Jewish state in Palestine. If a bunch of Americans buy houses in Italy, the land doesn't become part of the United States or a new country distinct from the rest of Italy.

I have to disagree

why can't a group of people form a new country out of their own land? Why are they forever under the jurisdiction of someone else?

Are you OK with immigrants

Are you OK with immigrants coming to the United States and forming their own mini countries scattered across the country? If so then you are being consistent.

Journal of Libertarian Studies: Who Justly Owns the Land?

"In mid May 1948, when Israel proclaimed its existence as a State, Jews were still less than 1/3rd of the population of Palestine. Jewish land ownership, as a result of the expulsion of the Arabs, jumped from nearly 7% of Palestine to 79%; thus it was military force, rather than a half century of land purchases (largely from absentee landowners), that was the primary method by which the land of Palestine became the land of Israel." -- Stephen P. Halbrooke, George Mason University; The Alienation of a Homeland: How Palestine Became Israel. (1981)

https://mises.org/journals/jls/5_4/5_4_2.pdf

Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820

you see 13, you went a challenged the status quo

You have to understand that most on here don't hate Jews because they are Jews, what they hate is you challenging their world of the Rothschild,international bankers taking over the world for Satan Greenbacker conspiracy theory. Man you are cooked on here....you are the enemy now.....oh BTW fuck the truth or what RP actually thinks....they are right because they saw it on a video

deacon's picture

In your resaerch

did it show where/how or when GB came into existence?
Like this,who backs them? who owns them? who controls them?
and who conrtols ALL the money,the wealth and who controls ALL them people?
If not,is your research complete?
d

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

what do you mean by GB?

great britian or grean backs? I understand where great britian comes in this argument since it took over the old ottoman empire and was responsible for forming most of the nations in the middle east, but I dont understand why its formation is important.

If you are talking about green backs then i understand lincoln made them during the civil war.

If you are talking about the fed, I seriously doubt every jew is responsible for the fed.

deacon's picture

Yes,

I was talking about Great Britian, But I wasn't talking about the formation.
Interestingly,the USA forms many gov's through nation building,then installing their own puppet regimes just as Great Britian has done.Some nations have a problem with that.
I never mentioned the 'jews'. There are other groups who control more than they do,but some might and do work for them,just as any other nationality can.

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

Actually Deacon

I looked at your other posts.....the one titled "Rothschilds, Vatican, King of England and Americans!" basically told me all I needed to know, even though I couldn't read it. Why is it redacted?

I would like to read it though...if you care to e-mail it to me, but I have been at this a long time and can pretty much guess what I would be looking at.

deacon's picture

No thank you

I'll pass on sending you that email,or any other for that matter.
From your comments to me,and about me here on this topic,I don't feel the need to send you that.
This will be though,the last time we talk about anything
deacon

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

oh Deacon and here i thought we were going to be

friends!

13...yeah I doubt Deacon

has ever opened a book or has done any real research, you can tell by his questions that his education on either topic (the Jews or money) came from watching YouTube videos.

This was a really good post by the way. If we were to follow the thinking of the haters on here I guess the USG should give up every thing they bought from the French in the Louisiana Purchase, I mean it wasn't the French's to sell......it belonged to the Native Americans. How many of these people live west of the Mississippi and own land.....would they put the money where their mouths are and deed their land back to the native Americans and still pay off the mortgage.....yeah I doubt it. There's no consistency in there thought patterns. That's one of the ways to distinguish the real folks from the kooks on here....and oh boy don't they hate it when you tell them. I am just the kind of asshole that doesn't mind telling them.

deacon's picture

really Goldspan?

You could tell by my questions that I was talking about the 'JEWS'?
I didn't mention them because I wasn't talking about them.
So you formed your point and an opinion about me and my comment,and neither one is right.One might say your premise was wrong from the start.

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

Well I just started my own research

I got tired of hearing all the israel bashing and the muslem bashing depending on what side you are on and decided to look into it myself. I am no expert but I know enough facts to know where I stand. I also know the problem started no later (and probably far earlier) than 1860 with the ottoman empire

I think people are emotional over the issue but I dont understand why. Its really odd considering that so many people on here tend to have an attitude of leaving other nations alone. I dont get it.

it because of the money conspiracy

Its that simple. Because they don't really understand money they believe the videos. I have devoted my life to understanding that aspect.

You are going on a journey. ....keep posting....take us along for the ride, I am looking forward to it.

deacon....I couldn't tell if you are asking me

If so, yes my research is more complete then any on here. Check out the Journey to Jekyll Island.

deacon's picture

where's the confusion?

are you and wraith the same person?
did you write this post?
But what I really want to know is,how do you know your research is more complete than any on here? The way I am looking at it,if you or wraith can't answer the wuestions posed,then how do you know your research is complete.factual or even an honest assessment?
d

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

The confusion was

your reply was not directly linked to my post, but you mentioned the GB......if you meant Greenbackers, wraith did not mention anything about GB.....that was me, does that clear up the confusion.

When I say Greenbackers.....I am not talking about the currency specifically. I am talking about the political movement. They initially were the Populist in the late 1890's that morphed into the Progressives that gave us the Federal Reserve.

So your questions don't really apply to my statement.

As far as my research.....I have used this approach. If I am going to question the current system.....I better know EXACTLY how it works and was created.....otherwise I am doing more harm then good. You can't fix it unless you know how it is broken. So after thirty years of not only learning about the system but also working in the system I think I know EXACTLY how it works......where it came from and what is wrong with it. I would say that's the definition of the difference between knowledge and information. Unfortunately there are a lot of people on here with information, but very little knowledge.

Historically accurate as far as it goes, but not the whole story

In the late 19th and early 20th century the Zionist movement was considering several locations to establish a Jewish homeland in - Palestine, Africa, South America, etc. Funds were raised, efforts and land purchases went into each of these locations. To oversimplify: the focus on Palestine as the Jewish Homeland was pushed by the Brits as part of their strategy to destabilize the Ottoman Empire and counter the influence of the Russians and Germans. The Brits wanted hegemony in a stable land bridge connecting from Egypt and British East Africa to India.

An excellent read on this is "A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East" by David Fromkin.
http://www.ebook3000.com/A-Peace-to-End-All-Peace--The-Fall-...

But back to the subject at hand - Yes much of the lands were indeed purchased by Jews. But then the Brits began wavering in their commitments to the Zionists, just as they began wavering in their commitments to the Arabs, French, etc once the Ottomans surrendered. (They made several conflicting commitments). Britain hindered further Jewish purchases and Jewish immigration to Palestine from the 1920's on.

By the end of WWII the Zionist Jews were about 20-30% of the population of Palestine and owned much land. If the Brits had not gotten in the way and the the land purchases had been more coordinated and consolidated it may have been possible for the Jews to have had a majority population in a region of Palestine. But that did not happen.

Yes there were legitimate peaceful means employed in establishing a Jewish Homeland. And Yes there was illegitimate displacement and land confiscation employed when those means did not fully succeed.

On the Palestinian side it is likewise true that they have legitimate grievances. And that their leaders have consistently betrayed their cause and their people for personal gain and ambition. (Arrafat never cared if he ruled Israel or Jordan - he just wanted to be king somewhere, The same duplicity and corruption continues in the Palestinian Authority and Hamas.)And that they have consistently broken the peace with acts of terror. And Israel then slaughters hundreds or thousands and confiscates more land in response.

Both Palestinians and Jews have used Terror to achieve their goals. Both sides continue to use Terror. Both sides have history for and against them. At this point there is no black or white good guys or bad guys. The only winners are the Brits whose goals of destabilizing the Middle East and establishing hegemony from East Africa to India are still being pursued by the Anglo-American alliance.

"By the end of WWII the Zionist Jews were about 20-30%...

By the end of WWII the Zionist Jews were about 20-30% of the population of Palestine and owned much land.

The highest estimates for private Jewish ownership of land in Mandatory Palestine in 1947 is 7.51% (The Land Question in Palestine, 1917-1939; Kenneth W. Stein, University of North Carolina Press, Feb 1, 1987 pp. 3–4, 247)

The main problem that I have with your post is the following:

Yes there were legitimate peaceful means employed in establishing a Jewish Homeland.

It is that kind of simplistic thinking that created this conflict in the first place: culturally and ethnically, that region has been overwhelmingly Muslim for the past thirteen centuries and there hasn't been over 10% of Jewish population in Palestine in two thousand years. Yet you think that there can be such a thing as ceding 50% of that area to European settlers -European Jews that have been living and trading among Europeans for the past two millennia- in a peaceful manner? If Israel would have been created in Argentinian territory by European Jews as a result of 30 years of massive immigration, at the expense of native Argentinians, don't you think there would have been trouble there instead?

All things considered, there was only one possible outcome to the creation of Israel and it's the situation we have now and that is unfortunate...

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom — go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, an

its

disingenuous to say israel got 50% of Palestine, Palestine was not a nation before 1948 and neither was israel. Israel got .25 percent of the ottoman empire of the land they got they bought 14%, and much of the rest was either government land, or land that some land baran arab owned but had never seen because his great great grand daddy did something for the ottoman empire. Feudal systems really screw up the whole property rights thing.

Of the land the Israel got the jews had a higher population that Muslims. When the jews announced independence they were attacked by their neighbors, they won the war and annaxed some of Palestine. A lot of arabs left Palestine then but its not like it was a big deal since they were just going to another part of the old ottoman empire. Imagine if the united states fell apart and each state became its own separate nation for a few years afterward as these new nations establish laws and stuff I would imagine people would move around a lot and live with family in other parts of the old united states, that is simply what happened when a bunch of them decided they didnt want to live under Jewish rule.

by the way whats wrong with moving and starting a new nation thats how america did it.

"by the way whats wrong with moving and starting a new nation...

by the way whats wrong with moving and starting a new nation thats how america did it

The process of assimilation of North American natives was gradual and took centuries, from the English settling in the new continent to the American expansion into the west. Before the thirteen colonies revolted, the estimated native population in what is now the US varies greatly but what is certain is that was sparsely populated. The native population then diminished not because of war but because of decease. Then, when the thirteen colonies won their independence from Britain and started expanding into the west, it was then that we subjugated them by war and treaties. The process was a matter of centuries not merely years as in the case of the Jews in Palestine.

Israel got .25 percent of the ottoman empire

Administratively and cultrally Palestine has been its own region under the Ottoman, Mamluks, Byzantium, Rome, but in some cases attached to Lebanon or Syria. All the people that lived there, and that had been living there for centuries and centuries, know is that they had been ruled by Muslims (save the Brits) for thirteen centuries, with Muslim customs.

Israel got .25 percent of the ottoman empire

With this, you want to make it seem as if Jews claimed part of the Ottoman empire and you don't differentiate, culturally, someone living in Beirut to someone living in Istanbul: they're all "Ottoman" according to your assertion, therefore Jews only got 0.25% of that "Ottoman" land, you say. Your assertion would be accurate had the Jews migrating in equal proportion to other parts of the Ottoman empire however they only invaded the area in Palestine therefore your assertion is false. Furthermore, a Palestinian is not the same culturally as someone from Beirut, Cairo, Istanbul, from the Balkans or Greece; all regions that have been at one point under the Ottoman.

Imagine if the united states fell apart and each state became its own separate nation for a few years afterward as these new nations establish laws and stuff I would imagine people would move around a lot and live with family in other parts of the old united states,...

The US today is a multicultural society with predominantly Anglo Saxon ancestry and culture. I don't see why people would move around if the US falls apart, provided that most individual states remain with a predominantly Anglo Saxon culture in those individual states, as before. Of course if suddenly there's a massive influx of immigrants from a specific ethnicity that invades one or a few of the states, I imagine that there will be conflict in those states just like there was inevitable conflict in Palestine to the massive influx of European Jews.

Again, the title in your OP is factually wrong.

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom — go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, an

finally somebody who gets it

its a much bigger issue than most people on here want to admit.

Yes, I agree with some of what he wrote but I also

disagree with other things that he wrote.

The title of your OP, My research shows that Israel bought their land, is still factually false though: Jews owned at most 7.5% of the land of Mandated Palestine as of 1947... Where you got the other 44% of Jewish land purchase necessary for that statement to be factually true, who knows?

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom — go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, an

Quibbling over nuances to create a black vs white world view.

Are you pro Israel or pro Palestinian? Same tactic used to create the Right/Left paradigm in the US. If you like apples you must reject oranges. Camel swallowing 101.

Palestine was a whole region including Israel, Jordon, and parts of modern Syria and Egypt. None of this area had any history or identity as a sovereign nation in 1500 years. Israel, Jordon, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq as modern nations are ALL derived from European artifice - the Sykes-Picot agreement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sykes-Picot.svg

Arguing over whether the Zionist Jews (including or excluding indigenous Jews?)were 7% of the whole region or 20% of the area they concentrated in misses the whole point. Jews were always a minority. Zionists needed to be a majority in their little world to maintain their identity and the pretense of democracy and self determination. Likewise pretending that every act by a Zionist over the century of immigration to Palestine before 1948 was evil is just as false as claiming that every act by a Palestinian since then was evil. It is likewise false to make this conflict about Jews vs Muslims. The ethnic and religious composition and history of that region is far more complex.

There are those who argue that Palestine was divided - Israel as the Jewish homeland and Jordon as the Palestinian homeland. And that Jordon failed to accept and accommodate the displaced Palestinians who left Israel. Historically true and often left out of the discussion - but that also misses the real point.

Some argue that every leader chosen by the Palestinians has rejected peace and coexistence, and has lead his people to ruin for personal power. Also true but misses the real point.

Some point out that Zionism was originally promoted by antisemites who wanted to get rid of the Jews just like Americans wanted to solve the Negro Problem by forcibly moving blacks back to Africa (i.e. Liberia). True but misses the real point.

Some argue that Israels actions have been tantamount to ethnic cleansing and they force the resistance of Palestinians. Also true but misses the real point.

The real point is that no one point by itself realistically describes what is transpiring there today or describes what has happened over the last century. There is no simple caricature of truth. Real life, real people, and history is more complex than that. Today they are all assholes and they are all victims.

The big issue today is that all sides in that conflict are playing roles imposed by the intervention of the Anglo-American alliance to promote a very old agenda. It has been being orchestrated since the Crimean War in the 1850's. Maintaining this conflict is quintessential today to the well being of the Industrial-Military Complex, The War on Terror, The growth of Homeland Security, the NSA, the Power of the State, etc, etc, etc...

As long as we buy into either side as a simplified cartoon of this history we support the power of the State and are part of the problem.

By the way, did I mention that the Rothschilds were instrumental in promoting British support for Palestine as the Zionist homeland as opposed to Africa or South America where the focus was earlier? 'Nuff said. Look at the big picture.

return home

"Jordon failed to accept and accommodate the displaced Palestinians who left Israel"

How can you tell a refugee to assimilate in a foreign land? By what authority are you able to say that?

These "Refugees" refers to a very specific group of people. These are NOT persons who sold there owned property and left. These ARE people who forced from their homes under violence and the threat of violence of the Zionist militias and armies in 1947/48. These are the people who lived within the present day Israeli borders and are waiting to return.

Since day 1 from when they fled to now, the only home is the return home. To say they must accept their expulsion is illegitimate.

I'm not quibbling over nuances, I'm answering the OP.

The title of the OP, ...Israel bought THEIR land, is factually wrong. Or do you think it is factually accurate?

None of this area had any history or identity as a sovereign nation in 1500 years.

Not as a sovereign nation but it certainly had a cultural and ethnic identity as a Muslim region with Jewish and Christian minorities. What happened when the Christians tried the mass immigration of European knights to establish Christian kingdoms in that region during the crusades? See what I'm getting at? And it's not only because it is in THAT region, the same would have probably happened had it been in Argentina, Asia or almost anywhere else. The situation that we have now was obviously predictable.

Jordon failed to accept and accommodate the displaced Palestinians who left Israel

Other than by an act of good will and altruism by the population in Jordanian territory then, why would they have to accommodate refugees? Jordanians didn't want to accommodate Palestinian refugees even though they are culturally related YET you expect Palestinians to accommodate European Jews, that are culturally more European than Middle Eastern and that haven't come close of being a majority in that region in two millennia, in their territory peacefully? Do you see how ridiculous that expectation is? It just doesn't work like that, it simply doesn't, unfortunately.

Real life, real people, and history is more complex than that.

The only thing that's complex is the Jewish question: they've been a minority in almost every area on earth for the past 2 millennia but they want to displace a majority, somewhere someplace, to establish a Jewish nation. That IS complicated because, predictably, the people displaced fight back, and it's normal! The Palestinian reaction isn't complex at all, it was predictable and it would have happened had Israel been created almost anywhere else...

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom — go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, an

The Zionists Bought Some Land, That is True

In 1947 Palestinians owned more than 93% of the land where Zionists owned under 7% (see: http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Maps/Story573.html). This map is from the same website your Wikipedia article sourced its map displayed on the article's first page.

Your historical research is based on carefully crated Zionist propaganda to present they rightfully owned all the land claimed by the State of Israel today which they do not. This article here explains the complexity and non-western system of communal land ownership utilized by the Arabs (see: http://www.ap-agenda.org/nasser/nasser3.htm ). In other words the Palestinians had no use for individual title of land or to register it with an authority as they considered it an insult to their tradition.

The single issue that was the cause of the 1948 war was the UN partition plan which gave the majority of Palestinian land to the Zionists instead of the Palestinians which had the overwhelming population (see: http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Palestine-Remembered... and the map in 1947 here see: http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Maps/Story580.html).

It was unfair then, it still is and that's why Israel continues to occupy and oppress Palestinians on their own land.