Actually, I have repeatedly posted that the events around 1948 should be considered a reciprocal transfer of populations, rather than an ethnic cleansing by just the Israelis.
So far, so good. The British tried quite hard to negotiate just this arrangement in the 1949 truce talks. The Arab states took the truce, expelled their Jews, then reneged on the rest of the deal.
Moreover, it is not 1949 any more. Meantime, the events of 1956, 1967, 1973, 1979, 1982, 1987, 1993 and 2000 have occurred in the Mideast. Your analysis pretends that they never happened, or at least, that one should take no notice of them. Not realistic imo.
Do they refuse to recognise marriages between Palestinian and Lebanese?
Interesting question, I don't know. But I'm pretty sure that it's illegal for a Muslim woman to marry a non-Muslim man in any Arab state - that is, if her brothers don't kill her first. It's also illegal to convert from Islam to something else. Not to mention those states that solve the problem by not permitting any Christians or Jews to live there at all. Like I said, the marriage of Muslims and Jews is a problem that Jordan has always avoided - by making sure Jordan never had any Jews. But do you call this racism? No, only Israel seems to qualify. Tell me, why is that, Jacob?
Do they refuse to let Palestinians who have married Lebanese move out of the refugee camps to live with their spouse?
I believe the answer to this is yes.
If it is a "foul slander", then it is one believed by the majority of people in almost every nation other than the U.S. and Israel
Especially in the many countries that believe that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are factual. Widespread belief doesn't render something true. |
