> I concluded that the if the Isreali argument is that 'we were here
> thousands of years ago, so we have a right to live here now' then this is
> seriously flawed (sorry!). Because the 're-claiming' of isreal took place
> in modern times, post second world war, there claim to the land is
> weakened. The basis on which the land ws taken 'back' was also very shakey
> and without much justification, which i guess makes the whole thing
> unjust.
> Personally i think the whole thing is very sad and up-setting. I don't see
> why they can't live together, however i realise this view is a simplistic
> one.
Well, "please" he sounds like an author after my own heart.
Their argument "stinks" to put it mildly, they never "owned" the land in the first place, it was all down to some parable in the "old testament" which is defunct anyway, proclaiming a land for the "chosen" people. The definition of "chosen" is open to debate also, however, they claim to be, so leave them alone I say.
The sad fact is, they didn't find the "chosen" land on some uninhabited island in the north atlantic, oh no, it happened to be already named "Palestine" inhabited by "Palestinians". They decided to take over this piece of chosen earth from all corners of the globe (i.e if you hold a Jewish identity, the ticket is free)
Yes the top and bottom of the argument has been well written.
They did not belong there, they invaded another's territory, they should have gotten out before they ever got in and now the rest of the world is paying the price.
It sounds a wonderful read.
Thankfully, you can see, it does not mean you are racist to call a spade a spade.
I'm not racist for the sake of being so, honest.
However, Israel should never ever have been named on the map.
It was, and look at the state of the Middle East now.