Did the Israelis kill the Palestinians and steal Palestine?

Answer 1

Answer 1

Yes they did, in 1947 the Israelis took over Palestine, trying to wipe out every Palestinian when some survived after this tragedy happened. The Israeli's are saying that they did not try to wipe out every Palestinian and there wasn't even anyone there when we got there.

Answer 2

It's quite complicated and there are two questions in this question.

Firstly, did Israelis kill the Palestinians? Yes, but it was for the most part a conflict not a civilian massacre. There were certainly events that led to numerous Palestinian deaths and the removal of Palestinians from large swathes of land. Throughout the fighting (from 1947-1949) numerous Palestinians were forced from their homes inside what would become Israeli territory, culminating in the Israeli atrocities committed against the Palestinian people in such places as Deir Yassin. Other Palestinians left in fear that they too could be attacked and forced to leave. This climate of fear and and desire to leave was increased by Arab leaders who encouraged such activities claiming that it would get civilians out of the way while the fighting occurred. After the War and the elimination of Israel, the Palestinians would return without issue. This did not happen as Israel was victorious. Palestinians call this event (the overall war and removal from their homes) the Nakba or Great Catastrophe.

Secondly, did the Israelis steal Palestine. No. While Israel certainly acquired a lot more of the former British Mandate than they were initially given, this does not fall under theft since Israel was not fighting an expansionary war, but a defensive war. As concerns the original Israeli territory as allotted by the United Nations Resolution 181, allocating territory to Jewish State and to an Arab State (Palestine), this is settled law and completely legal. Therefore it is not theft. However, people chose to avoid the legal definitions of things when those do not accord with their personal feelings.

Answer 2

There are two questions here. Since the killing is a far easier point to address, I will put it first:

1) Does Israel kill Palestinians?
There are certainly current encounters where the Israeli government engages in both military confrontations and targeted executions of Palestinians. However, such actions are exclusively reserved for actual combat, especially with Palestinian militant organizations. Regardless of how repressive some aspects of the West Bank Occupation are, there is almost never a complaint that someone was killed for disobeying an Israeli soldier or Israeli military initiative. Israelis reserve the use of lethal force for attackers who come at Israelis with lethal intent, such as the Palestinians involved in the recent Third Intifada, who run at Israelis with knives to stab them to death.

One of the most ridiculous claims as concerns the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is that it is a genocide , and that is discussed more thoroughly in this Related Question: Is the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict a genocide? However, most simply, if it were the case that the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is a genocide, it is the most poorly conducted genocide in human history. It is a genocide where the targeted population is not only increasing in number, but is even more fertile than the supposed genocidal group. To put in perspective how absurd this claim is, in 1948, there were 1.2 million Palestinians in British Palestine and now there are nearly 11 million Palestinians worldwide, 6 million of whom live in the former territory of British Palestine. If we use only the growth from 1.2 million to 6 million Palestinians in the territory of the former British Mandate and compared it to the Holocaust, we should expect that the number of Jews would rise from 9.3 million (in 1939) to 46.5 million Jews (in 1945), as opposed to the actual marked decrease to 3.3 million Jews in 1945 – because a genocide actually decreases the population of the targeted group.

It is also selective and biased to talk about Palestinian deaths at Israeli hands (roughly 31,000 deaths including over 12,000 Palestinian suicide bombers), but completely ignore the Palestinian deaths at Arab hands, which may be as high 24,000 deaths. It shows that the Palestinians are simply a Propaganda tool when two threats of roughly equal magnitude are not addressed in anywhere near an equal manner. Please read more in this Related Question: What are the events of the Arab-Palestinian Conflict?

2) Does Israel steal Palestinian Land?
Framing the question with the term "Palestinian Land" already sets the question as having a certain desired answer because it creates an anachronistic sense of Palestinian ownership of the land and national territory.

Palestinian Land?
The land of Mandatory Palestine was not owned in common by a Palestinian nation or community. in fact during the period of Ottoman control (1517-1919),t he Ottomans did not recognize anything similar to the borders of British Palestine during their administration. The area was administrated as three separate governates/provinces: the Wilayet of Damascus (which controlled much of what is now Syria -- except the Alawite coastline, as well as Jordan, and southern Israel), the Wilayet of Beirut (which controlled much of Lebanon, the Alawite coastline, Hatay Province of Turkey and northern Israel), and the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem (which controlled the central area of Israel and the current Palestinian Territories). The land was primarily owned by Turkish nobles and would transfer to British government control in the 1920s (save for the small amounts purchased by the Zionist Jewish Agency). Even as late as 1948, the most Pro-Palestinian estimates only argue that Palestinians owned 45% of the land and most accurate estimates halve this since only 20% of Palestine was even arable in 1919 (so why would there be large amounts of Palestinian-owned land in non-arable territory).

Most of the land was, in fact, empty. Particularly noteworthy was that Ottoman Law held that land that had been leased to the peasantry (most actual Palestinian-owned land) that was not occupied at any point in three years would revert back to the Ottoman leaders. This land treated in this way was called Mahlul. This meant that during the Ottoman period, the majority of land of the future British Mandate that could not be cultivated belonged to the Ottoman government and nobility since it came either through Mahlul or Ard Mawt (when land was never populated and was directly owned by the government with no intermediate steps).

Creation of Israel
As concerns the 78% of Mandatory Palestine which is now the State of Israel, this came about (1) through Jewish purchases of land from the actual landowners: Turkish nobles and (2) through Israel's acceptance of UN Resolution 181 and its border defense against Arab aggression to counter international laws that they did not like. As a result, the acquisition in the 1947-1949 of war was not an illegal act since self-defense is not a criminal act. The Palestinians forfeited any rights that they had to the land upon which they lived by rising up against the Israeli forces. This is a natural part of war. If there is no possibility of loss in war, but only possibility of gaining, this effectively incentivizes war, so the loss of this right is normal.

Palestinian Citizens of Israel -- Israeli Arabs
Conversely, those Palestinians who made agreements with the Israeli forces, such as the Sheikh of Abu Ghosh, a number of Sheikhs in the Galilee, the Greek Orthodox Church, and the Non-Palestinian Arab groups (Bedouins and Druze) both retained their property and acquired Israeli citizenship. Just to clarify, this means that the 1949 borders of Israel belong to Israel and those Palestinians who chose to make peace with the change of rulership. None of the current concerns about loss of land apply to these Non-Jews within Israel's borders. There are a number of issues regarding temporary Bedouin settlements (which are in violation of Israeli laws requiring permanent settlements for the provision of basic services) and laws that limit the expansion of municipal boundaries (which disproportionately affects Israeli Arabs because they have a higher Birth Rate). However, this is concerning the creation of new towns and villages or expanding current ones; not the loss of current territory. Additionally, were Jews to engage in the same behavior, they would be just as penalized. (Jewish neighborhoods that are growing rapidly face the same municipal boundary issues).

Palestinian Territories
As for the remaining Palestinian areas that were acquired in 1967, the situation becomes murkier. By implementing the Ottoman Laws of Ard Mahlul and Ard Mawt, the Israeli military government in the Palestinian Territories "confiscated" the majority of West Bank territory, which was still devoid of people. It was on this land that the Israeli government permitted settlement construction. Now, considering that the land of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are supposed to be the basis for a new Palestinian State, there is a compelling argument to say that this taking and re-purposing of unused land is a hostile or aggressive taking. However, Palestinians were not directly having their land stolen.

What happened is that a number of settlements were formed outside of this Israeli-controlled land, especially in Hebron and the surrounding area and Israeli Settlers did begin to push Palestinians out of their homes. A different, but parallel situation is happening in Jerusalem as (1) prices are forcing Palestinians out of their homes due to inability to afford the areas (2) Israelis want to build new housing in undeveloped areas around Jerusalem that are officially part of the West Bank, and (3) Israeli Archaeology is going on in Palestinian East Jerusalem (especially the neighborhood of Silwan). This has pushed a not-insignificant number of Palestinians out of their homes and made a number of Palestinian neighborhoods much less safe for the remaining Palestinian community in the neighborhood, since Palestinians do not trust the Israeli police to defend them against aggressive Settlers.

Finally, an issue that often happens throughout the West Bank, but especially in East Jerusalem is that Palestinian homes are declared to be illegal constructions since they were never registered with an Ottoman, British, Jordanian, or Israeli building authority. Of course, this ignores that when these houses were likely built, in the Ottoman Period, there was not the degree of bureaucracy that would mark down all house construction. Since the Palestinian homes are marked as illegal constructions, it is permissible under Israeli law to destroy them. Often the net result is that a new house with Israeli Settler occupants shows up with minimal delay on the same land.

Resolving the Settlements Issue
However, as concerns a final resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, the settlement issue is largely irrelevant. Either (1) there will be a land-swap where Israel will get the settlements and the Palestinians will get Israeli land (which Gaza with its massive overpopulation desperately needs), (2) the settlements will become part of Palestine and the Israeli Settlers will either accept Palestinian citizenship or leave (most will leave rather than be subject to a Palestinian government), or (3) the settlements vacated of Jews (like in the Gaza Strip) and used as a goodwill or reparations offering to the Palestinians. In all of these scenarios, the presence of settlements in the West Bank does not actually prevent a peace deal.

Answer 3

This Answer will address only the issue of Palestinian deaths.

Short answer: It's called self-defense, which is legal under international law.

Israel finds itself in the untenable situation of having its civilians constantly under threat and under lethal attack, while at the same time remaining under unequaled and unbalanced scrutiny by the media and by foreign governments. Israel contorts itself in its efforts to avoid killing Arab civilians, but is viciously denounced internationally when there are collateral deaths.

And why does your Question mention only one side of events?

Like some of the media, the U.N. and others, you may be biased.

What about the thousands of Israelis that have been killed by Palestinian terrorists?

What about the fact that Palestinians walk in Jewish neighborhoods without fear, while no Israeli dares enter many Palestinian areas, for fear of car-theft and lynching?

What about the fact that in forming the State of Israel as permitted by the U.N., the nascent State was attacked by seven foreign armies and survived only by the grace of God? Was Israel fighting a one-sided war?

Israel's enemies could lay down their weapons, and ask us directly: "Why hasn't Israel returned to its pre-1967 borders"? Then we could carry on a serious debate. And that issue is not one-sided.

• When Israel's neighbors have pursued a policy of discussion and debate, solutions have been implemented, not only argued over. Israel pulled out of Sinai and gained a peace treaty with Egypt. A very cold peace, but a strategic and useful one.
  
• Israel made border-adjustments and water concessions to Jordan, and gained another cold but useful peace.
  
• The same process brought a treaty in May 17, 1983 with Lebanon but it was blocked by Syria.
  
• The same process was almost completed by Rabin and Arafat in 2000. They were at the treaty-signing table, having hammered out all the details. Then Yasser Arafat pulled out of the ceremony, and initiated the Second Intifada, loading the "Karin A" ship with tons of weapons for terror-use.

Israel acknowledges that its existence is viewed as a problem by some, and certainly many of its actions are seen as such. Why not negotiate? Why doesn't Hamas, or Hizbollah, agree to hold talks?

Answer: Because then they'd be called upon to change their official stance (as Egypt did), which does not recognize Israel at all. They don't want to do that, so negotiations are scuttled before they can begin.

More information:

Israel is portrayed as an evil country by some of the media, by many U.N. and E.U. statements, and by a significant portion of the Arab and Muslim world.This despite the fact that Israel has better human-rights than any other country in the region (click on the blue text for details).

Israel has been boycotted for decades, and its citizens have suffered from the conflict, yet it continues to be optimistic and it enjoys God's protection.

The presence of the Jews in Israel is questioned by some, despite the Jews' history in and from Israel, and despite God's clear words bestowing Israel to them. Words which are recognized by Islam as well.

Those who condemn Israel for its side in the conflict, fail to condemn the actions of Israel's enemies, no matter how heinous.

See also:

Why did Israel bomb Gaza?

How is Israel different than the rest of the Middle East?

More about Israel

Answer 4

Question #1):
No. Israel does not steal Palestinian land.

Question #2):
In contrast to the suggestions, urging, public policy, and teachings of the Palestinian
government, Israel's government has no public policy that is hostile toward the
Palestinian people. It does not encourage its citizens to hunt down Palestinians,
it does not excuse or praise Israelis who do kill Palestinians, Jewish preachers
do not preach hatred of Palestinians from their pulpits in their synagogues, and
Israeli parents and teachers do not teach their children that Palestinians are evil,
or that they should look forward to the heroic pursuit of Palestinians when they
grow up.

However, if and when it happens that Palestinians cross into Israel with evil intent,
aiming to harm Israeli citizens, they don't get a free pass. They must keep in mind
that their intentions place them in danger, and that they can hardly expect the police,
or military forces, or anybody on the street who recognizes their intention or sees them
try to carry it out, to hold back from defending their intended victims. Palestinians who
cross into Israel intending to hurt Israelis must understand that they run a high risk of being
hurt, or killed, themselves.

Your question is really quite one-sided, and seems to come from the position of a prejudged
answer. You don't ask whether Palestinians kill Israelis. Is that because you believe the concept
is so unthinkable ? Is it because that possibility doesn't really bother you ? Or is it because
you know the answer so well that it's not worth asking ?

If you ever have the opportunity to drive through the parts of Israel known as Judea and
Samaria, you may be struck, as I was, by a fact that's so incongruous, so profound, and
so significant, that it takes a long time before you even notice it, and when you do, you
realize that it needs to be headlined in every news medium worldwide, but it isn't.

Throughout Judea and Samaria, there are Palestinian Arab villages and Israeli Jewish
villages, scattered among each other, some only a few miles apart.

The Israeli Jewish villages have security fences surrounding them, police-patrolled
entrance gates, and police cars patrolling the streets of the village.

The Palestinian villages have none of these things.

How would YOU explain the difference.

Others may disagree with my impression, and I'm sure they will. But here is my take:

-- The Israeli Jews KNOW why unwanted visitors try to get in, and what they will do
if they succeed in getting in.

-- The Palestinian Arabs KNOW that Jews don't do that !