Just because the Jewish people have an old claim to the land area of Israel doesn't mean it is their right to settle there.
Are you saying that the Jews have no right to be there? And are you saying that Palestinian Arabs have more
of a right to be there despite the fact that their land claim is much more recent?
There were people there before the Jews and I can claim that those people have the right to the land.
I addressed this in an earlier post. Yes, there were people groups there before the Jews, collectively known as the Canaanites, but those groups no longer exist, leaving the Jews as the existing people group with the oldest claim.
But in the early 20th century Jews made up about 10% of the people living in the area that is currently Israel. Arabs and Muslims made up the rest.
Yes, there were indeed times when the Jewish population in that area was relatively small, but that was largely due to Muslim Arab persecution of the Jews. As a people, the Jews never had a desire to leave their homeland, which is why so many Jews went back
there when the opportunity arose.
That number was fairly consistent until the beginning of WWII when, during the war, Jews migrated to the area of Israel by the hundreds of thousands to escape the Holocaust and the war (Nazi Germany was not the only area Jews migrated from during WWII. They came from Russia, the Slovaks and all across German occupied Europe).
I would hope that no one would have a problem with the Jews fleeing the Holocaust, and in particular fleeing to
their homeland. It's the logical thing to do.
When Britain decided to pull out of the area, urged on by their allies in WWII and the United Nations and sympathetically allowed Israel a sovereign state, Jews still made up only 30% or so of the people of the area.
Is it wrong to have sympathy for a people who lost 6 million members? Besides, where else could anyone reasonably expect the Jews to go besides their homeland? Besides, all this conflict could be avoided if the Palestinian Arabs went back to their
homeland in what is now Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is HUGE, and wealthy; it could easily
give the Palestinians a large plot of land, set them up real nice, even help finance the move so that Palestinians would have a good start in their new (old) homeland. Of course, even then the terrorists would still want Israel "wiped off the map," but one thing at a time, I guess.
Over a million Palestinians would be displaced from the area of Israel over the next 5 years.
You seem to have no problem, though, with the fact that Palestinians first displaced the Jews.
To me, that is pretty hard to defend with "well the Jewish people occupied the land 2300 years ago so it really was their land".
It's not as though the Jews voluntarily left their homeland, then later changed their minds and decided to go back after someone else had moved in there. As I described in detail in a previous post, violent Muslims pushed into the area with their "convert or die" program, which didn't go over so well with the Jews. Given those circumstances, I find it perfectly acceptable that the Jews began moving back, and pushing back, when they became capable of doing so.
If that is the case you should just leave your house and country right now and turn it over to a Native American because they owned this land first and their gods said it was their land.
This is a good point, and one I hear a lot whenever the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is discussed, but this Native American example is usually used as a pro-Palestinian argument, when really it should be used as a pro-Israel argument, since, as I've made clear, the Israelis were there first.
To address your point about me leaving my house and country:
1) You're right; the Native Americans were here first.
2) I wish that Native Americans had never been mistreated.
3) There was nothing wrong with peaceful
foreigners exploring and settling in the New World. The origin of Thanksgiving features a peaceful, mutually beneficial coexistence of Native Americans and Pilgrim settlers, and I think that had there never been any violent newcomers, Native Americans and European colonists could've flourished together, whether they were one country or two. Likewise, before radical Muslims exerted themselves in Middle-Ages Israel, there were peaceful Palestinians there, and they and the Israelis got along well, the Palestinians particularly benefitting from the Israelis' advanced agricultural practices. It's also worth noting that today's Israel generally has no problem with peaceful Palestinians living within its borders, and even during Biblical times there were people of other "races" and ethnicities living with the Israelites, and God commanded the Israelites to treat them well. The problems today, as I see things, are these:
a) People viewing the Israeli/Palestinian conflict only through the narrow lens of the last 100 years, which makes it look as though more blame lies with the Jews, and conveniently ignores the fact that violent Muslim Arabs were the initial "displacers."
b) Violent Muslims, who will never accept even a peaceful two-state solution, because they want all Jews dead, period, and will not cease until that happens or they themselves are dead.
c) Perhaps the most disturbing to me: a seeming indifference by Americans and other Westerners toward radical Islam, and an accompanying tendency to be more condemning of Israelis who are trying to defend themselves. It seems to me that many people don't comprehend how awful and evil radical Muslims are, and I don't see the condemnation of them that I think is appropriate, particularly from so-called "moderate" Muslims in this country.