Nashwan, why didnt you answer his first statement? Here let me highlight it for you in case you missed it: You know what Palastinians are? They are Arabs and there is no such thing as Palestine and never has been. There has never in history been a state or even a defiined area know as Palastine.
I did, you obviously missed it. Here it is again:
Palestine was the name given to the area long before that. If you read the Balfour declaration, committing Britain to support a Jewish national homeland, it says "in Palestine"
I didn't point out that the area had defined borders, but I'll do so now if you like.
There was a defined area called Palestine. It was full of Arabs, called Palestinians.
As for your answer, it is kinda symptomatic, we seem to be talking about different aspects of the same subject. Nuke said approx 200 000 arabs fled the warzone when the arabs attacked. You say that closer to 500 000 fled but most of them fled before he Arab armies attacked. Does this mean that you agree with Nukes statement that approx 200 000 arabs fled after the arab attack? But you also would like to include 2-300 000 arabs in this refugee number, although those ppl fled before the state of Israel came into existence. Is that the correct way to interpret your statement?
I agree with most of the statement, but I wanted to put it in context. All too often, people believe the old story, that Israel was set up peacefully, and the evil Arabs tried to destroy them. The truth is Israel was set up amid a lot of violence, from both sides, and the Arab armies attacked after a lot of violence and ethnic cleansing had already been perpetrated.
It's sort of like someone parroting "Britain and France started WW2 by declaring war on Germany". It needs to be put in context.
I do not agree with his desription "willfully left", which implies they went of their own free will, rather than becoming refugees when their towns and villages were attacked. If you want to repeat the propoganda, that they left because they were told to do so by Arab radio broadcasts, I will oint you to the work of Erskine Childers, who analysed the BBC monitoring service records, and could find only repeated appeals to the Arabs to stay put.
The question of when "zionists" began immigrating to Palestine is completely irrelevant and without interest. It is also irrelevant how many arabs there were living in Palestine in 1922.
It's not irrelevant, because Nuke claimed the Arabs were settlers, just like the Jews. By showing the population figures from 25 years earlier, I am showing that these areas had an Arab population, therefore they can't hve been "settlers".
Nuke says that there is no such thing as a "Palestinian", they are all arabs, Nuke also says no arab state demanded a palestinian state before the 60-ies. Your reply has got nothing to do with this. Why the smokescreen?
How is this a smokescreen?
The area was populated by Arabs. It was called Palestine. The people were called Palestinians.
There is no such thing as a German, they are all Europeans. Perhaps Germany could be given to the Jews, and the "German Europeans" moved elsewhere in Europe? (It would certainly have been more fitting than making the Palestinians pay for the crimes of Nazi Germany.)
As to wether any Arab states called for the setting up of a Palestinian state, I don't know off hand. I don't really care enough to find out either. Why should what the Palestinians neighbours wnated matter? The Palestinians themselves repeatedly called for their own state.
As for the Balfour declaration... tell me Nashwan…was there a British protectorate called "Palestine" in the area at that time?
No.
Might that be the reason the geographical location of the soon-to-be jewish homeland is described as "in Palestine"?
I'm obviously to stupid to understand your fine legal brain. Please explain.
Nashwan you never cease to amaze me. How many times have we been over this? Can you please once and for all give this part of your argumentation up. Yet again you stumble onto the arena of international law with the persistence of a drunk. GIVE IT UP. We have been over Jordan and Egypt and the legal status of the west bank and the gaza strip in countless posts before. Just back away from the subject you clearly dont want to understand.
Do you now claim the West Bank and Gaza are part of Israel? As I said, nobody, not even Israel, makes that claim.
Just make it clear wether or not you believe the territories are part of Israel.
And whether you like it or not, whether you believe it or not, Israel has international law on her side in this conflict. Suck it up.
In what way exactly?
And you have ALOT to learn about citizenship. If Israel would annex the west bank or the gaza strip that would not force her to adopt the people living there citizenship. What ever gave you that idea? Citizenship is regulated in national law, or in this case Israels national law.
Remember your lectures on the difference between politics and law? Israel cannot annex the territories and not provide citizenship, not for legal reasons but for
political reasons.
And again…it doesnt matter. How many countries, including Israel recognized the fact that the territories are under de factoIsraeli jurisdiction and control?
I was responding to the following statement:
Israel legally owns these captured areas as a result of territory gained in a war with a negotiated end.
Israel has de facto control. That is not "legal ownership"
