Comment by gryzzly
Nothing against doing good. As well as all Arab countries maybe - with that I agree.
The point that arabs somehow have more right to that land is however absolutely bizarre.
Nothing against doing good. As well as all Arab countries maybe - with that I agree.
The point that arabs somehow have more right to that land is however absolutely bizarre.
I didn't say you did, and I did include (and italicize even) the "more" part, but it was in a later edit that you may not have seen.
You conveniently omit any agency of the people, who refused most agreements on civil division or dialogue.
Aside from this being a warped narrative -- none of the interceding events, however you might prefer to spin them, have any bearing on the basic principle (and the categorical distinction between the types of claims) just outlined. Which of course applies to any continuously resident community of peoples, anywhere.
is however absolutely bizarre
Not in the least. All descendants of any reasonably fixed population anywhere in the world have a perfect right to keep living where they are.
Migrants from other places can ask for permission to settle there. If they can point to ancestry which left or were expelled the region many centuries ago, they can put that in their application. However this fact does not by itself establish a "claim", or a "right" to that land, beyond a symbolic or philosophical one.
In this context, the idea that a migrant population (having been for a very long time had widely dispersed from the region and mixing with other groups) should have not just intrinsic "rights" to a piece of land it wants, but more rights than the actual continuously resident population of that land -- is quite bizarre, indeed.