Cal Thomas observed in his column of Wednesday, September 9, 2009: “The Obama administration is again pressing Israel to stop building homes on its historic territory.” Should one not find some problems with this general principle of land allocation?
Would one not have to cede the right to build homes on the Falklands to the Argentines, whose claim to the Maldivas antedate the British claim to the Falklands? Might not the Cherokee return to North Carolina from Oklahoma after unjustly driven out by Andrew Jackson’s military? Might not Native Americans anywhere have to experience a mighty boom in building all over their former homelands? Perhaps the proto-Celtic and Celtic tribes want to rebuild Europe by way of a kind of Irish and Welsh invasion as the only remaining Celts? If this principle would hold, we would have to face a mightily confused mess in relocation of sundry peoples. Just think of the west-shifted Poland that would have to claim territory from Russia and would have to cede territory to Germany.
NPR has reported a mere few days ago that remnants of pre-Israel Canaanites have been found. Would those Canaanites not have greater claims to “historic territory”? Or do we rely on and stop with biblical accounts for the establishment of “historic territory”? If so, we must remember that the first biblical accounts of the entry of Israelites into the so-called Promised Land clearly expose that entry as nothing but a genocidal invasion. So should one not be a bit hesitant about claiming “historic territory” there for anyone?
I see greater merit for peace in that region if one were to observe separation of church and state as well as separation of ethnicity and state while embracing integration, diversity, and equal rights for all in that region.