realifedad saidIts quite apparently not one of the higher democratic standards to be forcing people off their land, farms and out of their homes for settlements.
You mean kind of like what we did with the American Indians in the 1800's? Perhaps the Indians should demand we roll back borders
How curious that RLD has no sympathy for the Jews who were driven off their land.
For 20 years, after which, 44 years ago, they re-established their homes.
On land that they had purchased, without forcing anyone off the land.
This is the age old lie, pretending that population (or farms) are a zero sum game and thus each Jew had to displace an Arab after "stealing" his land.
The fact of the matter, as was documented by British committees of inquiry decades ago, is that Jews PURCHASED lands (usually those considered uncultivatable) and developed them.
The fact of the matter is that the Arab population GREW the most precisely in those areas of Jewish development.
From the 1937 British Peel Commission Report:
The Arab population shows a remarkable increase since 1920, and it has had some share in the increased prosperity of Palestine. Many Arab landowners have benefited from the SALE of land and the profitable investment of the purchase money. The fellaheen are better off on the whole than they were in 1920. This Arab progress has been partly due to the import of Jewish capital into Palestine and other factors associated with the growth of the National Home. In particular, the Arabs have benefited from social services which could not have been provided on the existing scale without the revenue obtained from the Jews.
The shortage of land is due less to PURCHASE by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population. The Arab claims that the Jews have obtained too large a proportion of good land cannot be maintained. Much of the land now carrying orange groves was sand dunes or swamps and uncultivated when it was BOUGHT.
So NO. Not at all like Europeans did to the Native Americans.
Not to mention that it was foreign Arab empires that had invaded, occupied and colonized the Jewish homeland.
A better analogy might be the Native Americans buying back land from Europeans (prior to the establishment of the USA).
As far as the prospect of peace is concerned, the "settlements" (i.e. Jewish villages) and "construction" are a red herring and a pretense to avoid making peace. Consider these points:
1. Any construction in areas that will be included in "land swaps" is moot.
(Under the Clinton compromise parameters, 80% of Jews would remain where they live.)
2. Any construction in areas that Israel will cede to a nascent Palestinian Arab state is to their benefit.
(Or, like the famed greenhouses of Gaza, the Palestinian Arabs can throw a party and destroy these.)
3. If there truly is peace, why shouldn't Jews continue to live in their homes - just as there are Arabs and Arab villages inside Israel?
The reality is that if the Arabs made peace, the "settlements" and "construction" (non-) issues would take care of themselves. The best way to address this is at the negotiating table. Yet they use it as an excuse to not negotiate, choosing instead to perpetuate the conflict and violence.. only to then cry us a river that they are the "victims" of a conflict they started but won't end?
Consider further that when Netanyahu imposed a unilateral 10-month moratorium on new construction, the Arabs parties still balked, finding new pretenses to avoid negotiations, compromise and peace.