You’re getting into definitions as though this were a case of “the reason behind the verse is not interpreted.” The reality here is simple. There was an Arab population here that did not succeed in establishing a state. The fact that technically they couldn’t demand a visa from everyone who arrived doesn’t deprive them of the right to stop immigration. And Michi, you’re capable of better than this. Ignore your surroundings and what you’ve grown used to thinking, and examine the logic of the matter. I thought that a person like you, for whom a significant part of his way of life is testing pure logic without bias and drawing conclusions solely out of commitment to the truth, would be capable of conducting a coherent discussion on this issue and addressing the arguments in good faith. Apparently the landscape of your birthplace is stronger than that. Too bad. Retract your view.

P.S. The person in the question you mentioned is not me.

Why, if I’m not rushing to “register” my right to a state, is it permitted to cut ahead of me in line and register a state on the lands on which I intend to request registration of a state?

Why, if I (the Palestinian people) did not merit to raise herds of polished politicians well versed in the laws of statecraft, and therefore I’m delayed in establishing my state, is it permitted for people from afar who have just arrived to cut ahead of me in line and register a state at the expense of my future right to a state (is this because of the rule of “something not yet in existence”? I am astonished).

I answered all these questions. And I suggest you leave the psychological diagnoses of me to the psychologist’s couch. In my view these are klutz kashyas squared, not because it’s hard for me to deal with them but because there’s nothing to deal with. They’re simply nonsense in the extreme.
The fact that what lived here was a collection of individual people is obvious. The fact that some of them began initiating national organization in very preliminary ways doesn’t mean anything. There were also moves to establish a Jewish state in Uganda. The Kurds also want a state, and so do the Basques. So they want one. And those two examples are far more clear-cut than the Palestinian move.
These moves began, and not by coincidence, after the start of the Zionist aliyot. Three and a half Arabs got an appetite and said they wanted one too.
There isn’t even such an ethnic unit at all. Most of them came to the land for various reasons and from various places, and became Palestinians within the course of their struggle against us.
And I haven’t even touched on our precedence, our clear identity and our clear connection to this place, and our distress in exile. To take into account some embryonic desire of a few Palestinians and because of it not establish a Jewish state is simply idiotic.

And after all that, as long as there is no state, this is a vacuum. Desires and feelings in one’s heart change nothing. Formal definitions definitely matter when dealing with sovereignty and states. You can’t run things otherwise. Even in the context of ownership and not sovereignty, if you live on land and haven’t bought it, I can settle on it and even buy it.

And after all that, we were willing to divide the land with them, as was also decided at the UN. They refused and went to war in order to throw us into the sea. They lost. So they can eat what they cooked.

1. You haven’t answered all the questions until now. For example, the argument that we follow definitions (and don’t interpret the rationale of sovereignty) you wrote only in this message.
2. When you don’t write arguments, I too can answer you with psychological diagnoses.
And now to the arguments:
3. I’m not talking about nationhood; let’s assume the Palestinians are not a nation. I’m talking about a state. A population that exists in a certain area has the right to decide who may immigrate to the land and who may not.
4. The argument that we preceded them is problematic. What, can any person bang on the doors of a state because he was there 2,000 years ago? No one operates that way.
5. The argument from our connection to this place is not acceptable in my opinion. There is another state here (potentially, even if not in actuality), and a connection you have to a state does not grant it to you.
6. As for our distress in exile, you can turn to a psychologist. Does someone owe you something because of that? And no, we are not taking the Palestinian desire into account, but the fact that they are in the land, and even if formally they were not recognized as a state, it is an immoral colonialist act to exploit the fact that they didn’t manage to establish a state in time (for their own reasons, such as the desire to be part of a larger Arab nation). And again, they didn’t manage to establish a state, not a people; they are not a people.
7. Same here. On the moral level it’s not proper even if formally—technically—they didn’t establish one. It’s taking advantage of the opponent’s lack of sophistication. Go by the rationale: why don’t people enter every existing state? Same thing here.
8. The argument that we wanted to divide the land is only valid if you’re right that it was okay not to ask their permission for massive immigration.
After all the above, for the record—I tend to think like you. But your decisiveness (“nonsense in the extreme,” “klutz kashyas squared,” and so on) has no place. There is a serious discussion here with valid sides in both directions, and it’s worth clarifying it, certainly on such a critical matter.

Bottom line, Michi: do you identify them as a people and recognize their right to their own sovereign state in Judea and Samaria and Gaza?

We have nothing but to hold on to the words of the master of “the occupation corrupts” in every respect. No land belongs to any people, because “the earth is the Lord’s and all it contains.” In our consciousness this is our land, and we fight for it.