Strangely enough, one of the arguments from both sides is that they are entitled to the land because their ancestors had the land. The fact is, hereditary issues should not even be taken into consideration when discussing the Arab-Israeli conflict.

As Americans, we have an uneasy relationship with the idea of inheritance. We believe that this land belongs to us, despite the fact that it was, in large part, stolen from Native Americans through deception, broken contracts and wars of aggression. Regardless of this, Americans believe that the current landowners, not the improperly-compensated Native Americans, are entitled to the land. We also believe that we are not entitled to anything simply because our ancestors owned it.

For example, my grandma was an Austrian immigrant to this country, yet you would have a hard time finding someone that believes that I am entitled to Austrian citizenship for that reason alone. America is a land of immigrants and most Americans would say that they are not entitled to the citizenship of the countries from their ethnic backgrounds.

At some point, all humans originated in Africa but people know they do not have any legitimate claim on citizenship rights in Africa. All land has been, at some time or another, owned by someone else. This does not mean that we recognize the descendants of anyone in history who owned the land as having equal claim on the land.

Despite this, Americans have no problem changing their minds about what a person is entitled to when it comes to foreign conflicts. One of the reasons proponents of Israel sometimes claim is the legitimacy of Jewish control of the Land of Israel, as it was controlled by Jews for thousands of years, and it was only because of an exile forced by the Romans more than 1,800 years ago that the Jews left.

Opponents of Israel will say that the Palestinians, while never controlling the land, had occupied it for thousands of years and only left 60 years ago; unless you count the Philistines, who controlled Gaza and some surrounding areas as early Palestinians. Some were forced out by Israel, some forced out by Arab armies, and some left completely voluntarily, expecting to be able to return after an almost inevitable Arab victory.

Regardless of when or why the Jews or the Arabs left the land, neither side can legitimately use this argument to claim entitlement to Israel.

For either side to claim land ownership for hereditary reasons would be comparable to arguing that landowners of most of the United States leave their land and give it to various Native American tribes.

For either side to claim citizen rights for hereditary reasons would be comparable to Americans going to the countries of their ethnic origin and demanding full citizenship rights. The only exception to this is the Arabs who themselves voluntarily left Israel. Sixty years ago, that number was approximately 700,000.

Socializing and accepting an individual is first and foremost the responsibility of someone’s country of birth, not the responsibility of a country that a person claims ethnic or historical ties to. Likewise, it is the responsibility of any country to provide citizenship services to anyone born within their country legally. A country does not inherently owe anything to anyone else.

Alex Freitag is a State News columnist. Reach him at freitaga@msu.edu.