Originally Posted by LOCOChief
That is a good analogy and how I view it. And I completely agree that nothing justifies the attacks on people of Israel, but I would probably feel differently if my great grandparentís farm was taken by a foreign invader. I don't think that the fact that it was water under the bridge would curb my animosity.
What foreign invaders? Jews were already there before Israel was created. In fact, they were terrorists fighting for a state before it was cool to be a terrorist fighting for a state. Certainly many others emigrated after Israel was created, but they weren't foreign invaders.
When Britain's mandate ended and the UN partitioned the area, two states were created; a Jewish one (which had both Arabs and indigenous Jews in it) and an Arab one (which was almost exclusively Arab). The Arabs didn't like it so they went to war and later were joined by the neighboring Arab states. Even then, the Arabs wanted it all. Israel ended up winning that war, but as a part of the war, many of the Arabs that were in Israel fled (or, I'm sure in some cases, were forced out) and became refugees. This is what they're talking about when the palestinians demand a "right of return". They want to be able to return to Israel and reclaim land that they or their forefathers left 60+ years ago. This will never happen.
But to make a long story short, not only were there not foreign invaders, but it was the Arabs who tried to destroy Israel when they lost their previously held land, not the other way around.
"After voters re-elected an administration that added five trillion dollars to the nationís debt, left 23 million Americans unemployed, surrendered Iraq to Americaís enemy Iran, and enabled the Muslim Brotherhood to gain control of the largest country in the Middle East, the one lesson Republicans should agree on is that elections are driven by emotions, not reason." - David Horowitz