[wahnfrieden]

It is irrelevant to the conditions of the time which the Nakba was carried out, and irrelevant to the topic:

>If 2 families solely inhabited (owned) an island, since pre-history, and Family 1 sells the entire island to newcomers, while Family 2 takes no part in the deal or its approval, and does not cede their land to the purchase, then any court in the land will, quite rightly, hear Family 2's case that they are still the owner of their regions of the island.

Which describes the Balfour Declaration if Family 2 accounted for over 90% of the territory.

The current Likud party also recognizes their claim to the territory "from the river to the sea" does not involve the will of its other residents, as in the Family 1 & 2 story:

> Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.

[rayiner]

> It is irrelevant to the conditions of the time which the Nakba was carried out

Why is that the relevant time?

If somehow native Americans got together and took back Oklahoma, would white Americans have any basis to complain? I would say no.

[wahnfrieden]

You’re saying Palestinians stole the land and deserved losing it

[wolfhumble]

> accounted for over 90% of the territory.

So in this case the Family 2 in Canada would be the Canadian people I would assume? It is always a question of how far back you go . . .

[wahnfrieden]

You’re suggesting the 90% native Palestinian population previously stole the land

[wolfhumble]

It is possible to have two thoughts in the head at the same time.

The Palestinians living in this geographical area have a connection based on the history of their families living in the area. The Jewish people have a connection to the area based on the fact that most of their culture was founded in the area, but were later driven out as consequence of Roman and Byzantine actions – wars, enslavement, expulsions etc. This of course is the root of the whole conflict (with the additional pressure from surrounding hostile nations).

From what you have written it sounds like you mean that the Jewish people have no connection to this area. You also put words in my mouth that I have not said: "You’re suggesting the 90% native Palestinian population previously stole the land"

This is a difficult conflict to solve because both sides have valid arguments. It doesn't help to pretend one side doesn't have any valid arguments at all.

[trimethylpurine]

I don't think the root of the problem is that. There are currently 10-12 million people with nowhere else to go. That's the root of the conflict. Most people don't care enough about "where" to get shot over it. They just want to raise their families in peace and Israel happens to be where politics landed them. Historically as refugees, and today as having been born there or escaping persecution or discrimination, or in seeking opportunity. Just like everywhere else in the world. The conflict is that a handful of assholes are set on war as a way of corporate profiteering on one side, or as an attack on Western ideology on the other. Everyone else just wants ANYWHERE to go live in peace. And no other country is going to let them move to there so they are staying put, and fighting, because they have to.

[wahnfrieden]

The one you’re commenting on will say things like they aren’t refugees, they democratically chose their current predicament, the civilian population is filled with terrotists and collaborators, they already turned down good deals for ending the conflict, and more questionable ancient oral tradition histories etc. Just useless to debate