Comment by lazyasciiart
2 years ago
There are millions of people in Africa who have been born and grown up in refugee camps, and you are arguing that they should all simply give up and consider themselves settled there forever because they’ve never been to the places their parents or grandparents fled? For one thing, they might believe that an entire farm would be better to live in than a single flattened apartment?
And then you argue for the ‘67 borders: that’s 50 years ago, what makes those the borders we should roll back to when almost no Palestinians of today were alive before then?
> and you are arguing that they should all simply give up and consider themselves settled there forever
I can't comment on all the situations because I have very little familiarity with refugees in africa, but assuming they don't have a state to return to and they can form a new state where they are? Then yes, 100% yes.
The 67' borders are internationally recognized, so I'm saying accept that and move on.
My grandparents lived in eastern Europe before the Holocaust, I'm not crying to return there because I have a new home.
Throughout history humans have been nomadic and moved from place to place. If you take any person and go up along their ancestry line at some point you'd probably encounter some ancestor that was displaced (by another tribe, nation, lord, just some bastard, etc), and yet we don't dwell on that.
The ‘67 borders may be internationally recognized but they are not currently in existence, which is why I am confused by your conflating the ideas of just accepting where you are now and returning to the borders that existed 50 years ago.
Accepting where we are now as in accepting the current international borders as more or less the blueprint.