superchunk said:
RE: Retribution. Your point is so immoral and biased it just is sickening. Sure someone removed from thier homes in Israel proper would be anywhere from 50 or more years old and as a percentage of Palestinian and Israeli populations these people who lived during that time are a very small number. But, that does not negate the fact that if Israel was not created there is a very high possibility that their decendants would be living in those very homes. Not to mention that after the 1967 war hundreds of Arabs were forcefully evacauted from Jerusalem and surrounding areas. Do you think all of settlements were built on empty unclaimed land? Do you realize how many farms and Arab homes have been demolished for these settlements? Or how many homes in Jerusalem that were forcefully evactated and resold to Jews or torn down to create a bigger worship area near the wailing wall? The US has been in control of this (USA) land for 100's of years. Yet, we still make retribution payments to Native Americans. Why? After all none of *us* took their lands. None of them even remember what it was like to live freely in a tribal way. Because it is just morally right. If Israel expects Palestinians to give up their legal and moral claim to their historical families lands, they should expect to make genuine retributions. Now, all of this is a mute point as Israel has already hinted that they would do this instead of allowing Arabs to return. It really has been botched up in agreeing to full withdrawl to 67 borders, which include old Jerusalem. |
We'll have to agree to disagree on the 1967 war. That war and it's beginnings and justification are open to vastly different historical interpretations, and I doubt you and I have a chance of sorting out that grand debate here.
As for you thinking my point is immoral and biased? Do you honestly think that the issue is that clear cut that it is immoral to think Israeli's (Jews and Arabs alike) shouldn't have to spend what would be billions in currency to a people that they personally have never downtrodden? This thread has already established that modern day Israel is effectively in a state of war with Palestine, where both parties are mistreating the other. But it has also established that the Palestinians (and NOT the ones that are alive today, but their ancestors) were oppressed primarily by the powers that pushed them out of Israel (UK, US, some Israeli ancestors and indeed other Arabs). What possible justification do you give for forcing Israeli citizens to shoulder the burden of compensating Palestinians who NEVER lived in Israel (as they were born after 1950, and especially those born after 1967) because other nations and some of their ancestors may have dislocated some of the Palestinian's ancestors from their land?
As for the settlements that have gone up in recent years? Someone that is as knowledgeable on the region as you appear to be knows full well that these were put up as a buffer to suicide attacks and rocket attacks and to fortify the land won in the 1967 war. Palestinians are not Israeli's and most of them have no desire to be. This alone makes them very different to native americans, who are citizens of the USA.
starcraft - Playing Games = FUN, Talking about Games = SERIOUS
