[ml/nj]

Professor Sand, a scholar of modern France, not Jewish history, candidly states his aim is to undercut the Jews’ claims to the land of Israel by demonstrating that they do not constitute “a people,” with a shared racial or biological past.

So does that mean that if we have a shared racial or biological past (the same thing really) then we do have a legitimate claim to the Land in this guy's mind?

ML/NJ

[Mrs. Don-o]

I figure that the Jews have a right to Israel on the basis of

• Purchase (because the Zionist Movement bought tracts of land in the late-19th early-20th century from the previous owners)
• Legal mandate (all that post-Ottoman business with the British)
• Settlement (they lived there, occupied the place)
• Development (they made creative constructive improvements)
• International Lawfulness (member of the UN, diplomatic recognition by 100+ other nations, that must count for something)
• Successful defense (they repelled, and continue to repel, attacks and challenges)
• Internal lawfulness (they have a system of law which is as internally consistent as any other nation: good as any, better'n some)

Add all that together, and don't you have very solid legitimacy right there? Completely irrespective of genetic and biblical claims?

I ask this in all sincerity, looking for your perspective. Because it seems to me that the grounds I listed above, no one of them in itself, but added together, are solidly persuasive. Better, in my view, than the racial/Scriptural grounds, because not open to charges of racism, Torah-vs-Koran fisticuffs, and so forth.

What say?