But if you say that the life in exile invalidates the connection of a people with their lost homeland, try to explain your theory to those people - born and bred in, say, London or Toronto - who call themselves Palestinians and demand the right of return to Palestine.
Surely you aren't trying to equate a people who's last direct connection to the land was over 1000 years ago to those who were forced out just 1-2 generations ago and have since been living in refugee camps? Platitudes observed on Passover aside, the Jewish people settled and fully acculturated themselves across Europe and the Middle East over the course of that millennium, and at best retained a tenuous, largely symbolic relationship with the land of Palestine. Moreover, how do their rights to the land somehow supersede those of the Palestinians? After all, the Palestinians are essentially descendants of local Jews and Christians who became Arabized and (mostly) converted to Islam...does the act of conversion somehow negate their right to a homeland?
I trust you understand the difference between the origin of the human species and the national identity and the national homeland (one and only) of a specific nation.
Fine. My ancestors left Iran and settled in Kashmir in the 17th century. Like many other similar families, we retain a Persian surname, and continue to observe Persian cultural customs. Our linguistic heritage is also heavily influenced by the Persian language, in fact, up until my grandparents' generation, people in my family still learned Farsi in addition to the local language. Does that give me, and other South Asians of Persian descent, the right to carve out a "homeland" in modern-day Iran?
What about the Moors? Andalucian Arabs lived in Spain for nearly 800 years before they were massacred and expelled during the Reconquista. Many of them fled to modern day Morocco, where to this day, their descendants still pass down the keys to their ancestral homes in Spain as heirlooms, once saved in hope of returning. They also speak a dialect heavily influenced by Andalucian Arabic. Surely they have a right to return to Granada and claim a Moorish homeland?
Besides, the Jews did not come to expel anyone. The expulsion was a result of the war that the Jews did not want and did not start.
How, pray tell, did they intend to establish a "Jewish state" in a land that where Muslims and Christians comprised over 2/3 of the population then? The war simply provided an excuse for the forced expulsion of non-combatant civilians as part of the ethnic cleansing necessary to make way for the Israeli state.
Offering the Jews a solution that would abolish their independence (again!) is not a legitimate attempt at peace either.
Arguments about the historical legitimacy of the creation of Israel aside, I think the continued existance of an Israeli state is a reality that the Palestinian people, and the Arab/Muslim world as whole, simply need to get used to. That said, how would the creation of a viable, independent, territorially contiguous Palestine, as part of a two state solution, "abolish [Israel's] independence?"
Frankly, its probably in Israel's best interests too. I think Tzipi Livni said it best when she pointed out (and I'm paraphrasing) that there are essentially three goals for Israel - (1) to be a Jewish state, (2) to be a democracy, (3) and to occupy all of the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea - however, Israel can only accomplish any 2 of these goals together. (1) & (2) would require getting rid of Arab-majority areas like the West Bank and Gaza, as demographic realities would otherwise make Israel a Muslim-majority country within a few decades. (1) & (3) would require an apartheid state, for the same demographic reasons. (2) & (3) would again cease to be a "Jewish state."
The question is why only the Arabs are allowed to reject unacceptable offers.
What are you talking about? Israel hold all of the cards in the region - no major world power is going to force Israel to do anything it doesn't want to, nor has any major world power indicated that it will do so in the forseeable future. Israel vetoes whatever it wants...even its finanical/military benefactors, who basically keep the nation afloat, can't tell it what to do.
The occupied territories are not the state of Israel (even by the Israeli laws).
Which is why clearly said I was going to ignore the situdation there and focus on Israeli Arabs.
Second, all Israeli citizens, including the Arabs, enjoy the same civil and democratic rights with all the benefits of citizenship.
Perhaps the most laughable thing you've said so far. Israel is a self-defined "Jewish state." Lip service to equal rights aside, its laws have been drafted to ensure preferential treatment for Jews...whether its in terms of immigration (why do only Jews have the "right of return"?), or the right to recover lost properties (Jews can reclaim propeties lost in '48, internally displaced Israeli Arabs cannot), or land rights (the government has sold 15% of the nation's land to the Jewish National Fund, which openly prohibits the leasing of land to Israeli Gentiles)...I could go on. Or we can talk about the government's neglect of Arab communities....why is it that public schools in Jewish areas receive nearly 6 times more government funding per pupil than their counterparts in Arab areas?
