Not so fast. First, by that definition many Israelis are "palestinian". Second, the definition of "palestinian refugees" was set by the UN to include anyone who lived in the British mandate territory for two years or more. The vast majority of the "disposessed palestinians" were in fact Egyptians who migrated to the area to take advantage of good employment offered by Jews. To hear them tell it, of course, they've lived their since before Goliath died...
The best plan for conquerors is to destroy the conquered.
The next best plan is to evict them from their former homeland.
Isreal was never strong enough to execute the first two. This is next best.
That's wrong on so many levels. First, the Israelis are more than powerful enough to eradicate the Palestinians, if that's what they wanted to do. Relocating them would be a snap. They have defeated the entire Arab world at once before, and can do it again. The reason they don't is that it would violate Jewish ethics. Instead they show mercy, even when it makes themselves targets.
But in addition to that, the whole idea that the Israelis "invaded" and "disposessed" an indigenous population is simply false. The original UN border was drawn the way it was because the territory of Israel contained a vast Jewish majority, and the areas given to the Arabs had an Arab majority. The border describes the reality of the population, not an act of seizure. Your summary is consistent with Pali propaganda on every level, and just as wrong.
In fact, the border describes the land purchased parcel by parcel through the Jewish National Fund. Nearly all the Arabs who remained in Israel were squatters--and their loving Arab brethren refused to take them in.
The Arabs rejected the terms in '48 which is what they say their demands are today. Is this correct?
Right.
The vast majority of the "disposessed palestinians" were in fact Egyptians who migrated to the area to take advantage of good employment offered by Jews
Arabs - all citizens of the Ottoman empire and the former Caliphate - began migrating to Palestine for this reason as early as 1880.
The reason they don't is that it would violate Jewish ethics
The haven't done it partly for historical reasons and partly because world opinion - in particular that of the U.S. - has always been of paramount importance.
But in addition to that, the whole idea that the Israelis "invaded" and "disposessed" an indigenous population is simply false...Your summary is consistent with Pali propaganda on every level, and just as wrong.
Well, I guess was wrong. Zhabotinsky too. There is no wall of iron. It's all just a psychotic illusion.