Quote:
Originally Posted by ZFBoxcar
I gave a more nuanced answer afterwards, but as is your way, you only assume people said what is easiest for you to argue with. For example, its easiest to argue with someone who supports theocracy and apartheid, I disagree with you, therefore I must support theocracy and apartheid.
I have no problem with the people who literally inhabited Israel moving back provided there is some proof that they did live there at some point (a deed, a lease, a bill, etc). My problem is stripping Israel of its right to control its own immigration policies by forcing it to allow an entire nation to move within its borders where it will be a majority and replace the Israeli nation with their own.
|
Not to mention that those people claim its their right to bring their children with them as well, who never lived there.
Even the qualification for having lived there is bias. The UN considers anyone who lived in the area for two years prior to the 1948 war a refugee. So people who were more or less nomadic in some cases came, lived there from 1946 to 1948, moved, and now are considered refugees as well as their children and their children's children to infinity.
Would someone be considered an American, for example, if they lived here for two years and then moved somewhere else? Of course not. But as always, Palestinians are special refugees, who have special rules and qualifications made for them in order that their grievances have more legal-rational claim to them then they actually should if they were treated like any other refugee group.