Your straw man is humerous at best. This is immoral, since justice can only be served towards individials. Or, "The sins of the father are not the sins of the son." However, in REALITY, those people who were forcibly removed still do exist, and thus, my claim is valid.
Now your argument is that "since justice can only be served towards individuals" it's OK to punish the sons for the sins of their fathers? Incredible.
There are probably a few Palestinian Arabs still around who are older than 54 and were forcibly evicted from their land. But the people doing the evicting would have to be at least 70 years old today -- unless you imagine that Palestinian Arabs were evicted by six-year old children.
Thus, the conclusion that you believe it is right to punish the sons for the sins of their fathers seems inescapable.
When I said the above, I meant it. You can INTEND an implication, or you can NOT INTEND an implication. In your case, your implication is (I take it from your childish rants), to be UNINTENDED. However, they ARE the rational conclusions to YOUR faulty and bloody premises.
We were talking about what I meant -- not what you meant.
Now who is straying from facts and reason? It seems that when you are unable to defend your arguments you resort to accusing me of "childish rants" and "faulty and bloody premises."
But the fact remains that you constructed your entire argument based on a false premise.
Since your premises are flawed, all other false conclusions must follow. This is the way things currently stand.
Clean up your act.
Admittedly, since you start with false premises and then apply false logic, there is always the slim chance you will accidentally speak the truth. But so far, it hasn't happened.
"You remind me of someone who is anxious to convince others he is honest and tries to do so by repeatedly announcing that he is honest. In my experience, that's a big red flag. Genuinely honest people have no need to keep announcing that they are honest."
You need to brush up on your logic. The above statement is not an argument or response to an argument. I'm simply alerting others that just because someone goes to great lengths to convince us he is a Master of Logic, it doesn't mean he is.
I wonder, do you try to win all arguments by attacking the arguers? How shallow. But then again, you do have a bloody premise, so I can only expect that you would attack arguers.
You respond to my arguments by calling me "immoral," "shallow" and "pro-death," and then you accuse me of resorting to ad hominem attacks.
Let me guess... are you Hanan Ashwari?