That statement can't be serious. In order to make it, you have to ignore almost 2 millenia of a dominant Palestinian presence in the area in favor of Israeli
religious claims. There was no major Jewish presence from A.D. 135, when the failure of the Bar Kohba revolt against Rome resulted in the Roman expulsion of the Jews from Palestine, to sometime in the 20th century. And I'm sorry, but the argument that the Jews have a
theological claim to the land just isn't valid in the modern world, imho.
And as far as timing is concerned? It is ironic you should ask that; it's a question I myself keep raising.
To answer it, its useful to consider the following example. Let's look at the Cajuns, of Louisiana, formerly of Canada, and earlier than that, France.
<snip>
In 1713 the French government sold out the Acadians to the British by giving Nova Scotia (Acadia) back to Great Britain. The British took the Acadian's lands by force, harassing and persecuting the Acadians in many ways. They tried to force them to bear arms against France and renounce their Catholic faith. The Acadians refused to do so, and many left and journeyed to the Louisiana Territory.<unsnip>
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/2073/cajun.htmThe Cajuns (Acadians) created a vibrant culture in New Orleans, which now has suffered a great destruction as a result of Hurricane Katrina. BUT, do you think because of that destruction that it would be reasonable or just for the Cajuns who have lost their homes in New Orleans to attempt a return to Canada to re-take the land that they lost there?
Of course not! I don't think there would be many who would think it reasonable for the Cajuns to make a claim to uproot people who had lived in the former Acadia for three centuries, on the basis of their historic claim, even though their expulsion from their homeland by the British was indeed completely unjust.
So, similarly, such an ancient Israeli claim to the land, based on a "nation" which was more accurately a theological entity (there was no differentiation, back then, between the religion and the state), should not be considered reasonable. In no other situation in the world has such an ancient historical claim to the land been considered valid, nor a religious one, nor one based on feelings of the people making the claim, however one might empathize with those feelings. (NOTE! This does not mean I'm questioning the right of Israel to exist; I'm just saying that some of the claims don't hold water.) (...and we could of course, also discuss whether the Native Americans might hold a claim to lands in China, based on their earlier life there, before the migration across the Bering land bridge...how far should we go back, indeed.) Also note that this does not invalidate Palestinian claims to the land, which are current, within our lifetimes, and must be honored in light of a variety of UN decisions. It's really very simple to decide what time framework to use.
And then you wrote this:
<snip>
...as far as the "life isnt fair" argument..thats the very first thing we teach our kids...and its the first lesson one learns in society.<unsnip>
Come on, do you really think that the "life isn't fair" thing is the
first thing taught to kids. Nah, we teach them about sharing, about obedience (to parents, in this case), and even, if the parents are good ones, compassion, before the "fairness" lesson kicks in. (It is a peculiar fact of human existance that for most lessons we learn there is also an alternate and diametrically opposed lesson which is equally true - "a stitch in time saves nine" vs. "haste makes waste" - but that is
more reason to reject an argument based on saying "the world's not fair," because it only represents a half-truth.) The choice to focus on the "life's not fair" argument appears to be made so frequently because it appears to justify Israeli agression; it is a tactic employed to delegitimize the Pal's valid claims, and to justify ignoring them, imho. But, I am pointing out that by continuing to focus on the "life's not fair" argument you are avoiding dealing with the issue of human rights and justice. It is easy to say "the world's not fair," much harder to acknowledge that one is saying that one does not believe in or support human rights and justice, when to do so would involve the relinquishing of a dearly desired and cherished prize. But that is essentially the case of Israel's stance vis a vis the Palestinians today.
I wish just once in this sort of discussion I could somehow get through and the person on the other side would see what an oppressive and aggressive thing the creation of the exclusively Jewish state of Israel, on Palestinian ancestral lands, was from the Palestinian/arab perspective. This is the basis of the fight against Israel, yet most people on the Israeli side appear to be blissfully oblivious to it. If the Israeli security issue is different from other nations, it is because the creation of the state of Israel was also different than that of other nations.