If this sort of thing had happened say 500 years ago, I guess the problem wouldn't be as complicated. One side would exterminate the other, and the notion of owning a land would become irrelevant. That's not the case here though. So long the "true owner" lives, they will have a right to what they own. I realize the words between quotations are disputed and may sound controversial to some of you, especially if you start going all Plato, but to make things more simple:
Try imagining what would happen if the scenario would be repeated now, say with part of Britain (or anywhere, really). Say Obama promised Armenians a home in England.. As far as I'm concerned those people living in England now will be the rightful owners of their lands, even if for 100 years they're still fighting back for it, so long they still exist.
Again touching on the notion of legitimacy, I guess it's most similar to the right of the crown. Sure, you can "steal" that right, but ironically history has shown that you have to exterminate the rightful heir to become so yourself. This time around, the rightful crown prince is still alive, and you only killed the king. I guess history repeats itself for a reason.
Sadly I'm painting the same tragic picture most of you do.. One side has to exterminate the other, it is an existential conflict, but as far as what I think, I will side with the Palestinians on this, because well, I do think they are "rightful" until they do not exist. Of course this is not the only way to go. The other way to go about this is to try and altar the existential nature of the conflict, which requires integration efforts the involved parties are clearly not spending. This also, IMO, falls on the stronger party. The strong integrates the weak.
Dear brit friend, I welcome the notion of you not caring about anything. Indeed your country has done the world enough favors.
Bookmarks