Self-hating Leftist
Regarding Sheikh Jarrah, if Jews are entitled to regain property they lost in 1948 in east Jerusalem, then logically shouldn't Arabs who lost property in 1948 in west Jerusalem also be entitled to regain it?
----
Right-wing Settler
Actually, it's all ours.
----
Self-hating Leftist
Okay got it. So actually as much as you and I might want otherwise, it's hard to justify Jews moving into Sheikh Jarrah in the way they have.
----
Right-wing Settler
How do you get that from "Actually, it's all ours."? What's so hard to justify about people moving into land that's theirs?
And furthermore, why should I passively accept the narrative foisted upon us that (at BEST) equates Arab and Jewish displacement, when Israel accepted the humiliating 1947 partition plan, and it was the Arabs who rejected it... See More, and after waging ceaseless war upon us, now want to keep whatever they stole, while demanding to get back whatever they lost (which was not even theirs in the first place)? I reject that. It's all ours, and even if it wasn't before (but it was), it's all ours now.
----
Self-hating Leftist
I got that from your comment because you didn't actually provide any explanation as to how the two situations are different.
I didn't say that the Arabs get to keep what they stole and also get back what they lost. I said that if Jews can regain what was stolen from then (in Sheikh Jarrah), then logically Arabs should be able to regain what was ... See Morestolen from them (in Ein Kerem, for example). Equivalently, if the war is over and Arabs can't regain their property from before the war, then why should Jews be able to in Sheikh Jarrah? How do you figure that Arab property in Ein Kerem was not even theirs in the first place?
----
Right-wing Settler
Actually, I provided all the explanation necessary, even if it was only four words long. I can even cut it down to three:
It's all ours.
The "logic" you assert is only valid if both parties have an equal claim.