In literature there are books written in 1st person, 3rd person, omniscient, right? Each has its strengths and weaknesses in making sense of the world. I wasn’t suggesting Ibrahim write from his personal position for the purpose of narcissistic reductionism but to better define some issues I believe would benefit from a 1st person narrative.

Generally, in law you cannot take someone to court for something that doesn’t affect you. If we allowed that then it might end with others telling us what to do. For cases where that isn’t easy, we have tort law.

If one makes a case that Palestinians should get land back that was stolen from them in 1948 then we have to answer many questions. To the original owner, to the 2nd generation, the 3rd generation. If the current occupant hasn’t broken any laws, what do they get in compensation? There are many, many questions.

One can form any “moral judgement” they want. Living our lives, however, we must work within the time and place we’ve ended up. 100 years ago, if you were born a Jew you had to live at the pleasure of whatever nation-state you resides. They couldn’t own land.

Today, a Jew can move to Israel and feel defended by a nuclear arsenal and military currently unmatched, pound for pound. I am NOT justifying anything. I am not making a moral argument. I am only stating what I hope you will accept as a simple statement of fact about the reality for Jews 100 years ago and today.

One hundred years ago Palestinians were what? What is a Palestinian exactly? And why can’t a Palestinian today live like the Jews 100 years ago? Where is the world fair today? Is it really any different? We could talk about this until we die ;)

Before we handle the big issues (tell others what they should do ;) ), I believe we should argue what we want, personally. It’s what I try to do. I helps me clear my thinking.