I don't believe the US went in for a systematic renaming/demolition of places as Israel did. Balad Al-Sheikh has a history going back to the 16th century, Nesher to only 1924.
I realize discussing politics here is pointless, but this is just so comically ignorant I have to reply.
1. Israel won its independence after barely managing to fend off the joint armies of seven Arab nations who invaded the Jewish area following UN partition decision, openly declaring they intend to wipe all Jewish presence. Almost all nations, US included, predicted Arabs will succeed and decided to sit it out. Comparing this to the history of Europeans and Native Americans is simply ridiculous.
2. The name Nesher comes from a cement factory on whose grounds the cave was found. The name Ramle comes from the city founded by the Umayyad dynasty shortly after Islam conquered the land from the Roman Byzantine empire, which conquered it from the Hashmonites, who conquered it from the Hellenic Seleucids, who took it from the Persians, who beat the Babylonians, who took it from the Judeans, who conquered it from the Cannanites etc. After the Umayyad, Ramle was controlled by the Crusaders, then the Mamluks, then the Ottomans, then the British and now Israel. So declaring a specific 18-19th century village in the area as the original "Native" of the place rather than all others who lived there is - simply ridiculous as well.
As an Israeli, I have no animosity towards Arabs. But I really can't stand Western idiots who don't have a slight clue about the Mideast, or anything really outside their incredibly sheltered existance, and see the whole thing as some stupid Hollywood good vs bad conflict.
You don't think it's plausible that a foreigner F and local L can be found, such that F is better versed in L's country's history than L?
I believe that if I were to read a pamphlet on US history, and then go to the USA and quiz random people on it in the street, within fifteen minutes I would find someone born there who knows jack shit.
I think it's plausible, but not in this scenario. In the west, this is a politically charged situation. There, it's a matter of life and death.
If this was an actual simple border dispute, I'd be more inclined to listen to anyone who didn't have direct knowledge, but since this conflict hearkens back to literal Old Testament days, I'm more inclined to believe a native.
They made a plea (which you support), that simply because they are from there, that they therefore know the history better than someone from outside.
That does not follow.
I wouldn't say I know history of this area better than all Europeans, but definitely better than the vast majority. I wouldn't confuse Nesher the town with Nesher the factory, for instance, since having lived not far from the latter I know it's not anywhere near Ramle.
every time I think about walking into these kinds of conversations ... I realize that I would much rather not have mud on my shoes
There's a concept in anthropology called the paradox of the periphery, where people who are farther from their origin / homeland tend to get statistically more religious or extreme in their relation to that homeland....
I feel like that applies to people who are farther from the issue in the whole israel situation. everyone living or from there tends to mention nuance and complexity and everyone farther away just calls it an "obvious" issue with simple solutions.
Also I'm not American.