TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
Stop with the dishonesty and attempts at playing word games. "Provisionally indepenent" does not mean they were an independent nation. They were still under British rule and British authority and Britian, by virtue of being on the winning side in WW1, had the right to decide what they wanted to do with Palestine.Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Which means nothing in regard to Palestine being established as an independent nation...Originally posted by: TheSnowman
I know this:
Class A mandates consisted of the former Turkish provinces of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine. These territories were considered sufficiently advanced that their provisional independence was recognized, though they were still subject to Allied administrative control until they were fully able to stand alone. Iraq and Palestine (including modern Jordan and Israel) were assigned to Great...
http://www.britannica.com/EBch...120113/Class-A-mandate
It means everything with regaurd to my previous statement:
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
No they didn't, just like the Syrians and the Iraqis didn't loose their land either, all three regions were considered Class A mandates, provisionally recognized as independent nations.
Which is quite different the outright "lost their land" you previously claimed, and apparently still cling to in spite of the facts.
I know you are aware of this fact by you keep attempting to obfuscate by throwing out a term that truly has no meaning.
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I understand that they...The Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza aren't given that option because Israel is an ethnic nationalist state which already has far more Arabs than they want. Israel never anexed the Palestian territories, they simply colonize it under force of military occupation. Do you not understand this?
So you do understand...
[/quote]
Yes. I understand that you want to overlook anything and everything relevant that you find doesn't suit your argument. You don't like a fact? Just snip it out and pretend it doesn't exist.
Besides that, my comment was about "names." Surely you know there are still Palestinians within Israel. Do you think they refer to themselves as Israelis, or as Palestinians? You were the one who claimed that names were "trivial." When called on it you try to move the goalposts completely and into a completely different angle that wasn't even part of the original discussion. I really don't care about your gripes concerning this situation so don't attempt to shoehorn them in where they don't really belong.