Re: "... but of an ethnic identity built on repatriation to an ancient homeland ..."
What's the point here? The Palestinian movement is built on repatriation to a modern homeland. Certainly modern is more important than ancient.
There's a legal principle to the effect that after you abandon a land for a certain number of years, it can be taken by "adverse possession". In the US, the number of years required for adverse possession to kick in is far, far, far less than the nearly many hundreds or even thousands of years you're backdating the Jewish ownership of these regions.
There is an interesting legal issue I see at work in the USA. I live in an agricultural area in the West, where water is an issue. Early treaties with the Indians, gave them substantial water rights. These were not enforced for most of the last century, but the tribes have gotten increasingly active with Salmon recovery efforts. So the farmers are being pinched wrt to water. The funny bit is this. The growers will argue that those "ancient" treaties don't reflect modern reality. Heck, you just can't take peoples income away from them to save some fish! On the other hand, the most valuable farm water rights are the oldest ones. Its the junior or more recent ones that get cut first in a shortage. So, if the right or treaty is for a whiteman, then older is better. If it is an old Indian right, well, heck its so old its out of date! We should negotiate a new one! Please note that the Indian water rights and the most valuable farm water rights actually date from the same time around here, 1860's or so.
The same thing is argued in Israel. A 2000 year old heritage is used as an argument for the modern Jewish state. But then, wrt the West Bank settlements we are told that the realities of the last 40 years have change the facts on the ground. I.e. old or new is good for Jew, new or old is bad for Pals. |
