sine29 wrote:Well, if one recognizes historical, cultural and religious rights,
How does one define these? Does thousands years of lost ownership of the land qualify a group to come back and take it back? Does "culturally" controlling something mean that you should control it indefinelty? And do religious rights mean anything at all?
Does thousands years of lost ownership of the land qualify a group to come back and take it back?
I think to really answer that question one needs to define what is meant by
ownership and to make a distinction between the different types of ownership.
I own the land my house sits upon. My ownership is recorded on the title of the land which is kept at the county courthouse that holds jurisdiction. My ownership of the land gives me certain rights to the land, I may build upon it, destroy what is built there, sell or lease it as I please.
But we are not talking about personal ownership, but political ownership. Over the land that I own are various political entities that also have a claim to my land. There is a school district, a city, a county, a state and a nation that all have a claim to political ownership of the land I hold title to.
Any of these political entities could change. School districts get redrawn, as do city and county borders. It's far less likely that the state and national boundaries will change, but such things do happen.
When political boundaries change, usually the land owner maintains rights under the new political entity, but not always. When political boundaries change, it is my opinion that it is not the fact of the change that should be judged, but how a persons rights both as an individual and as a land owner are respected that should be judged.
With that perspective in mind, to answer your question I would say that no, the existence of the Judean kingdom from thousands of years ago is not in and of itself a legitimate claim. That kingdom is no more, and any new political entity would not be the same.
At the same time, I would also apply that logic to the Ottoman Empire. That political entity was also gone, and nobody was suggesting bringing it back.
This is why people point out that there never was a nation called Palestine. If you dismiss or recognize the claim of ancient Judea, it’s important to also recognize that there is no similar competing claim.
As for cultural and religious, I personally am uncomfortable with making political decisions based upon religious beliefs, but religion is an important part of culture. Jerusalem was chosen as a target for the Zionist movement because of it’s cultural importance for the Jewish people. If one recognizes cultural importance, then one must recognize that the importance of Jerusalem to the Jewish people is very strong.
- By Pants-of-dog
- By FiveofSwords
- By Rancid