Doesn't a time come when population's size makes relocation talk immoral?
P. David Hornik
Published: 01.13.07, 19:05
In 2006, reports the Israeli Interior Ministry, the Jewish population of the Territories grew by 5.2 percent to 267,163 - just about the same as the population of Haifa. Since Haifa is about 10 percent Arab, there are actually more Israeli Jews now living in the West Bank than in the coastal town.
And many residents of the West Bank - or Judea and Samaria, terms as historically and geographically valid as Galilee - actually live in good-sized towns themselves. The four largest are now Modi’in Illit, population 34,514; Maaleh Adumim, 33,259; Betar Illit, 29,355; and Ariel, 17,723.
Given that the era of “pre-1967 Israel” came to 19, while the “post-1967” era now approaches four decades, does it still make sense to call those communities settlements? Does it make sense to call an Israeli who moves from a Galilee hillside to an Ariel apartment block a “settler”?
Israelis and pro-Israelis of goodwill have made various arguments against the settlements. Some said they compelled Israel to keep ruling over Palestinians and lose its character as a democracy. Some said particular settlements were too isolated and an unnecessary headache. Some said the settlements angered Palestinians and other Arabs and drove peace further away.
Even if those arguments were right, doesn’t a time come when the size of a population makes it simply a fact, and talk of its forced relocation becomes immoral?
-----------------
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3351405,00.htmlSo, the gist of it is, they are already there in large enough numbers, so let them stay. Doesn't that send the message that if you steal something that isn't yours, all you have to do is hold onto it long enough that you can pretend it is yours? Sounds like an argument of a 5 year old.