|
okay, I'm imagining that. So what? What is your answer? Why is Keith a settler but not Abdul? What is the difference? Both were refugees. Both were allowed to move in to occupied territory by their occupying nation. And if anything Keith has far greater claim to the land, after all, he owns it and grew up there. So why is only Keith an illegal settler? Why aren't ALL of those other Jordanians also illegal settlers?
Going back to my scenario, the following is your assertion, right? That a family living in the same house that they have passed own over hundreds of years can qualify as an illegal settler usurping the rightful inhabitants, ie: people who may or may not have ever lived there before, right?
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore