>I agree. My point was that we do have to take into accoint the changed circumstances. What was possible, feasible, and right ex ante is not necessarily so afterwards. We cannot >expect the Nebraskans or the Israeli Jews to "go back where they came from" and leave the land to the descendants of the people whom their ancestors, or people of their ancestors >generation, disposessed. That is all I meant by saying that the sell-by date had passed.
>jks
You are correct, and I understood that you recognized that they do have rights.
I guess I was speaking more from the quesiton of where the emphasis is placed when weighing considerations. I do think that starting assumptions influence the end result.
By this I mean whether one recognizes the full legitimacy of the claims, but augments the solution by integrating the changed conditions; or whether one holds a postion that distance in time, space and changed circumstances actually soften the legitimacy of the initial claim, lessens the need to recognize the full legitimacy of the claim.
Because from what I understand about the context of the Palestinians, I think that if Israel took upon itself to publically recognize its ongoing responsibility for the Palestinian refugee problem, this would itself go some way to changing the dynamics of the situation (I am sure not in any utopian way, however).
And my statements weren't meant in any way as a critique either you or Max, just playing off and further fleshing out your statements and trying to grasp where my own are leading.
Bryan
-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20030223/70bdba7e/attachment.htm>