Throughout history, exploration, settlement, conquest, reciept by treaty, or purchase has been used to determine the ownership of land. For this reason, when the Hebrews explored and settled eastern Israel four thousand years ago, it passed to their ownership. They conquered the rest of modern Israel and a little extra over the next millenium and gained posession of that too. It then passed into the posession of sucessive conquerors: Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Parthians, and Romans, and through treaty went to the Byzantines when Rome split. It then passed by conquest to the Arabs and later by conquest to the Turks. At the beginning of the last century it passed by treaty to the British as part of the Ottomans' surrender in WWI. At this point a slight change in the rules of war occured, and officially conquest was only recognized as a means of acquiring land if it was defensive. Now, in 1948 Israel was split and the Jewish and Arab residents of Israel got approximately half the land each by treaty from the UN. Most of the Arab half then passed to the Jews by diefensive conquest, while Gaza and the West Bank passed to Egypt and Jordan respectively by offensive conquest (though nobody complained at the time). In 1957 the Sinai passed to Israel by defensive conquest (note that a blockade such as Egypt imposed on Israel at the time is an act of war) and subsequently passed back to Egypt by treaty. In 1967 Gaza, the West Bank, the Sinai, and the Golan passed to Israel by defensive conquest (again a blockade such as Egypt imposed at the time is an act of war, as was the Jordanian shelling. (Syria and Lebanon commited an act of war by officially being part of the alliance Nasser prepared for the 1967 invasion of Israel. The only change in territorial rights in regards to Israel since then has been the passing of the Sinai to Egypt by treaty, so by my calculations everything that the Jewish state now posesses is legally its own. Any questions?

So well said, and so eloquent. Ynet ought to give this guy a full-time job. It is rare that a reasonable opinion is actually printed or posted online. Indeed, it is the Arabs who should feel uncomfortable about their people's actions, the actions that continue until this day.

And here I thought I finally got a sensible censor, as opposed to a loony leftist. Maybe he/she/it will let this slightly modified version get through. ----- First off, "Rob," you are almost certainly posing as a non-Muslim as part of your jihad. But then "war is deceit" according to Mo. Just as you like to whine about the mean Jews, I love to talk about Islamic genocides. Why, we can start with the first major genocide of the 20th century, perpetrated by the Turks against the Armenian Christians (which was the model for Hitler's own Final Solution). How many MILLION Armenians were killed? 1.5? 2? Now THAT qualifies as a Nakba. We're not talking about myths like Jenin. Oh no. Funny thing: Muslims can invade some place, enslave, murder, pillage, forcibly convert, subjugate, and steal land; and then this land becomes forever "Muslim land." And of course, Arabs who are now dishonestly called Palestinians really DID have a problem--they tried to kill Jews just as they always had before (e.g. in Hebron), but this time the Jews fought back and won. Boo hoo! I can understand your distress, though, "Rob," as you are part of the most backward major religion on this earth. Go back to Arabia, "Rob." And send the Arabs from Africa and most of Asia back there too. Plenty of room. No doubt you'll make the dessert bloom.

Excellent work.

"Many Arab nationalist leaders - from Morocco in the west to Iraq in the east - not only sympathized with the Nazis but cooperated with German agents before and during World War 2. The most outstanding Arab Nazi collaborator, however, was the leader of the Palestinian Arabs, Haj Muhammud Amin el-Husseini, Mufti of Jerusalem. Husseini spent most of World War 2 in the Axis domain in Europe. He conferred officially with Mussolini and Hitler. In a petition he submitted together with other Arab leaders, Husseini urged the Fuehrer in the name of the Arab nation to recognize the Arab right to solve "the Jewish Question" in the Arab countries. Later he helped the Germans recruit an SS division among the Bosnian Muslims, exerting his influence over their imams, later on inspiring them during their service. This apparatus was part of the SS headed by his friend Himmler. Husseini made energetic efforts to further the mass murder process by preventing the emigration of Jews from the Axis domain. He petitioned the governments of Axis Croatia, Hungary, Rumania, and Bulgaria, as well as their patrons in Germany and Italy, and neutral Turkey, (2) to prevent Jews from leaving the Axis zone. Towards the end of the war, when the Axis satellite states of Eastern Europe could see the looming Nazi defeat, they made plans to release Jews, especially children, from their territory, in return for various considerations or perhaps in order to clear themselves with Allied public opinion. The Mufti, hearing of these plans, exerted his considerable diplomatic influence among the Germans and their satellites to stop these children and adults from escaping their fate under the Nazis. Husseini even intervened with the Germans against trading Jews under their control for fellow Germans (including the so-called Templars) who had been interned by the British in the Palestine mandate, perhaps thusly showing himself more resolute in finishing off the Jews than were the Germans themselves." Read full article by Elliot A. Green, with numerous sources, on the NY Jewish Times. http://www.nyjtimes.com/cover/03-22-05/Arabs&Nazis-CanItBeTrue.htm

Nice to know that there are still assertive Zionists who know how to call things as they really are. This article made my weekend. Rob of Portland, there are plently of places for you to spew out your hatred, but this is not one of them. Believe what every fantasy's you like, but the fact is Israel is a world leading, legitimate and proud country and nothing is going to change that.

Most of them came here in the 20th century! Palestine is a LATIN name given to the land of Judea/Cannann under Jewish rule when they conquered it. Get it? Is is a latin name, not an Arab nationality!

Israel was and is for the Jews. God gave it to the Jews. Arabs can go back to Saudi arabia, Jordon, Syria, or hell. We are chosen you are not. Poor silly fool, no one cares about you squatters or your suicide bombing using kids as human shields. You treat your women as swine, 'honor killings'? Chuck you forlie. May your scud missles rain upon your heads. Pigs, losers, fools.

It must gall every pal alive to realize the lies they live with are such a worldwide joke on them, poor bums, their under the neo nazi notion that even though allied with Hitler, they are losers who will always lose. Why? They can't form a nation on a false notion of a lie that only exists in their pea sized brain. How they justify murder via their own kids is beyond devils. Dogs, with rabies is more like it. No matter how hard they try, Israel has them by the throat and for good reason. We are superior to them in every way. So, live with it. Keep your revisionist 'history' to your gutters of filth along with 'honor killings.' The world spits on crap like you. Unholy shi'ite waste. You and your ilk are trash, tref. Unclean, mentally ill. Even Arabs want you segregated for political and humane purposes. Foils, and kept on leashes like the dogs you are. Your kind gives me the creeps.

I think that mentioning the Palestinians' view on 1948 ("nakbah") in arabic schoolbooks is not the problematic part here. These children suck in this narrative at home anyway. Much more dangerous is that the Nakbah view is NOT mentioned in the hebrew version, used for the jewish kids. They are kept in ignorance about the way of thinking of their neighbours/enemies - however you call them. This means locking oneself up in one's own narrative without looking on what else is going on around - in this case in one's own direct neighbourhood. And such a lack of information in no way does produce nobel prize winners, nor does it make fit for surviving.

Actually there are questions, since you base your argument on the rules of war, but then omit one crucial little detail concerning the fact that there was an Israeli war of independence from the British. However much there may be a very long-standing Jewish claim to Isreal, this undermines your whole analysis since that was an offensive war. You fail to mention that the British declined to settle the land themselves, which they could have done in the inter-war years and, more crucially, you gloss over the fact that Jews effectively gained the land in 1948 by offensive conquest from the British (as it was we forced the British hand and the British Government was kind enough in conceding defeat to make provision for us in the subsequent UN agreements). However, according to your analysis we did not obtain a right to the land under the rules of war, but by British dispensation to the UN, which in turn adjudicated that there is a presumption of first call in negotiations, but no right, to the land within the 1948 division borders, since the borders were not yet finalised. It is rather questionable whether one can defensively conquer what is not yet one's own according to the rules obtaining at the time. And I'm not at all sure that one can apply "defensive conquest" to the areas beyond the 1948 borders since this did not mean retaking territory which had been lost in a recent legal state: the question is how long back can a historical claim go to determine if it is defensive conquest. Insofar as the 1948 division did NOT recognise the longstanding Jewish legal claim, legally, I'm afraid, the Arab position on the 1948 borders has some validity. If one wants to go back to antiquity, then there could be any number of conflicting claims from states who might argue that they are the legal continuation of previous empires. We could choose between Egypt, Greece, Iran, Iraq, Italy, Mongolia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, ... In reality, no conqueror has in the long run been able to retain control of a territory if the "natives" don't want it and if they are not able to totally assimilate the native population in the meantime. In the long run means sometimes over periods of hundreds or (in the case of Jews) 1000s of years. Equally it means that Israel is highly unlikely to be able to hold onto those areas with large Arab minority or majority populations. It is myopic to believe otherwise. Forget about the disputed West Bank and Gaza: in reality they are already lost unless there is an AGREEMENT on population transfer, which is unlikely because the Palestinian side won't now agree to it. So we come back to the central question: how far is it possible to incorporate and co-opt Israeli Arabs within Israeli society? If it is not possible to do so, Israel will lose further territory sooner or later. Without recognising their historical experience, one is unlikely to get their voluntary consent to remain Israeli. It is high time that Israeli Jews changed their tune or we'll lose even more.

Thank you Rob , you've just showed them what I was thinking about .Your response is clear,accurate and its the truth.They have to accept it .This land belongs to Palestinians and not the Jews.It's PALESTINE...They have to blame Germany for their holocost and not to punish the Palestinian people by occupying their land and killing innocent people.Jews can go back to where they were born,in Germany,Russia,USA,France......Is it clear?

God does not give presents to mecroyants especially a Land(PALESTINE).Why don't you say:Let the Jews go back to Russia,Germany,USA,France,,,,,,,,,,,,,Ethiopia,and(recently) to India?They came from these countries they were born there.If you want to live in peace go back home(birthplace).Last thing,we are not Pigs(I wonder how Yediot published your idiot reponse).Did you eat your meal of swine?Take care the Iranian scuds may reach the USA.Buy you an Umbrella....

In all those places you mentioned people were shouting at us "Jews go to Palestine!" because they knew we belong here and before any Arab ever dreamt of calling themselves Palestinian. You also seem oblivious to the fact that close to a million Jews were expelled from Muslim states after Israel declared independence.

How was the "war against the Brits" an offensive war? There were rather minor acts of violence but the real factor in the Brits leaving the Mandate was the collapse of their economy. The Mandate as a whole was relatively uneffected during 1945-1947. The Brits had an influx of around 100,000 people into the Mandate - not including Transjordan. This roughly correlates with number of Jewish immigrants 1919 to 1931. By December 1947 the Brits were leaving and the people the Haganah and others were fighting was the Palestinians and some foreign helpers - who killed around 1,500 Israelis prior to May 15 1948. The Brits sometimes intervened on the Israeli side, but usually stepped aside or intervened on the Arab side prior to May 15 1948. The Brits NEVER gave a "dispensation" - whatever that means - and the borders of 1948 are armistice lines, not actually recognised borders. They have come to be more or less accepted borders due to the 1967 war. Rather than your rather charming interpretation of British aid to Israel, Britain armed three out of the five arab armies fighting in 1948, officiered the only successful one, kept all European Jews in DP camps and out of Israel during the war and actively worked to prevent international recognition of Israel - it abstained during the UN vote - and actively worked to prevent Israeli entry to the UN. So much for British "dispensation"...

"You are faking the history, and so are Israeli schools." Actually, most historians tend to agree that the history put forth in the proposed book was not "faked". In fact, an '85-released IDF report from '48 tends to support that. If you have evidence to show otherwise, bring it forth. You think that we've been the most moral, which is more than likely true, but are nevertheless unable to face reality - just how secure are you in our morality? "You seem to have decided to make yerida to Toronto. Good. You will be more happy sitting on Eskimo land." - Says the American.

(NT)

Ok, so let's try again. I am not basing the Jews' current claim to Israel on antiquity, although a strong argument can be made for that, what I am basing it on is purely the UN partition and subsequent events. There was a Jewish revolt against the British, but that was in response t o a breach of treaty (the Balfour Declaration) and though you can still argue it was offensive conquest, the UN partition solidifies Israel's claim in any case, and since the Arabs got their half of Palestine in the same partition their claim to it based solely in that event is no stronger than ours. As for the 48 war and all subsequent Arab-Israeli wars it was a defensive war and the land the Jews took in that war was therefore acquired byh defensive conquest. You seem to have confused defensive conques with ofensive reconquest, so let's clear that up. Defensive conquest is conquest perpitrated during a response to an act of war (raid, blockade, invasion, etc.). A country that commits an un-provoked act of war, puts its territorial posessions at risk, since should the country it attacked emerge victorious, it has the right to all land taken during the progress of the war, that's defensive conquest.

If you change your claim from "most historians" to "most serious historians". The fact of the matter is this - the vast majority of Arabs left "at the first whiff of grapeshot" (To quote Benny Morris), whereas Jewish settlements stayed with the same or more amount of pressure. There was no plan to expell Arabs, no plan to ethnically cleanse except on the arab side. Where the arabs conquered land they either massacred the Jewish inhabitants - such as at Gush Etsion - or expelled them - such as in the Jewish quarter in East Jerusalem, this is the real ethnic cleansing which most definitely WAS planned. What you do have is alot of "historians" making claims about the 1948 without bothering to read any of the sources - mainly because they directly contradict their version. The names that leap to mind are Finkelstein, Kimmerling, Pappe, Massalah, Jacqueline and John Rose, Rashid and Walid Khalidi. Bottom line the Arabs chose war in 1948, lost and have been whinning about it ever since. We need to stop apologising for winning.

you wrote: "How was the "war against the Brits" an offensive war? There were rather minor acts of violence but the real factor in the Brits leaving the Mandate was the collapse of their economy. " there was a cost-benefit decision, that the costs of staying (Jewish insurgence, buying off the Arabs, and having to deal with the two parties) outweighed the benefits, but the attacks on British presence were almost solely Jewish and therefore the Palestinians mainly have the Jewish resistence (as well as the Holocaust) to thank for the early opportunity to form a state (the fact that they didn't take the opportunity is their loss). You wrote: "By December 1947 the Brits were leaving" and the people the Haganah and others were fighting was the Palestinians ..." by then there was little reason for the Jewish underground to attack British forces since they were no longer particularly relevant having announced in Sept. 1947 that they would be leaving in May 1948. You wrote: " The Brits NEVER gave a "dispensation" - whatever that means - " admittedly a poor choice of wording: the point is this, that the UK did not stand in the way of the UN decision, which it could have done by refusing to end the mandate until the two sides reached an agreement. They therefore let Israel announce UDI. Thus Britain fascilitated Israeli independence despite all the earlier interference which one can largely read as the UK trying to simplify its life in the administration of the Mandate (whether one agrees that it was fair or not). "and the borders of 1948 are armistice lines, not actually recognised borders." precisely because there has never been an agreement on these: Israel declared Independence with the legitimtion of a UN vote but without final agreements or guarantees. Thus we both agree that there are legal grounds (however spurious they have now become) for Arab reservations You wrote: "They have come to be more or less accepted borders due to the 1967 war. " Israel is a de facto fait accompli, in 1948, in 1967 and since (the settlements established using salami tactics) You wrote: "Rather than your rather charming interpretation of British aid to Israel, Britain armed three out of the five arab armies fighting in 1948, officiered the only successful one, " You make it sound like they did so with the sole intention that they fight a proxy war against Israel. This was hardly the reason and it is therefore hard to justify holding this against the UK. Hm, officered one of them in attacking Israel? You mean the Jordanian I take it: which didn't actually invade the territory ceded to Israel in the UN Resolution 181. Somewhat problematic but could be read as defensively acceptable You wrote: "kept all European Jews in DP camps and out of Israel during the war" Well they hadn't wanted to exacerbate the situation (as they saw it) for their administration during the whole Mandate period. I'm not quite clear about when they finally allowed people out of the DP camps You wrote: " and actively worked to prevent international recognition of Israel - it abstained during the UN vote " I'm not sure that one can interpret that as blockading tactics: the UK like all the "great powers" was not represented on UNSCOP during 1947/48 and had good diplomatic reasons not to vote one way or the other (remember Suez). You wrote: "- and actively worked to prevent Israeli entry to the UN." presumably because of believing that an agreement should be reached first (again I don't know the detailed thinking about this) ... the UK did though granted diplomatic recognition to Israel in 1950 ... Thank you for the detailed response. It doesn't though undermine the main points I was making: one cannot easily argue the case for Israel's current borders solely on the basis of the rules of war.

You wrote: "... I am not basing the Jews' current claim to Israel on antiquity, although a strong argument can be made for that" thank you for clarification (and I also believe strongly that there is a strong case, but also would rather keep the two separate -- just to be clear about it too) you continue: ", what I am basing it on is purely the UN partition and subsequent events. There was a Jewish revolt against the British, but that was in response t o a breach of treaty (the Balfour Declaration) and though you can still argue it was offensive conquest" thank you for granting that: hence the UN theoretically could reclaim juresdiction of the area west of the 1948 boundary ", the UN partition solidifies Israel's claim in any case, " yes, but: it was only ever a recommendation for which there was never a final agreement nor was it ever implemented (we declared UDI) "and since the Arabs got their half of Palestine in the same partition their claim to it based solely in that event is no stronger than ours." quite, if one argues on the basis of UN resoltions, then on both sides " As for the 48 war and all subsequent Arab-Israeli wars it was a defensive war and the land the Jews took in that war was therefore acquired by defensive conquest." If they were purely defensive, one could argue that. Has the elegance of giving us unambiguous rights to the areas which we most covet (Judea, Samaria and Galilee). Ironically stronger rights than to the area within the 1948 boundaries (as long as rights to the 1948 area are not necessary to claim the others). Perhaps it would have been easier if Golda Meir had seen to it that they were simply annexed in 1973, but nonetheless, there is an unwilling population on those lands, and therefore this theoretical possibility is, well, moot. and you went on: " You seem to have confused defensive conquest with offensive reconquest, so let's clear that up. Defensive conquest is conquest perpetrated during a response to an act of war (raid, blockade, invasion, etc.). A country that commits an un-provoked act of war, puts its territorial possessions at risk, since should the country it attacked emerge victorious, it has the right to all land taken during the progress of the war, that's defensive conquest." thank you for the clarification: I wasn't quite sure about this.

Until today (1888), no people has succeeded in establishing national dominion in the Land of Israel. No national unity, in the spirit of nationalism, has acquired any hold there. The mixed multitude of itinerant tribes that managed o settle there did so on lease, as temporary residents. It seems that they await the return of the permanent residents of the land. - Professor Sir John William Dosson Modern Science in Bible Lands, London: Harper and Brothers, 1889, pp. 449-450.

In 1948 the UK was going through one of it's regular post-war financial crisises. It had no money to maintain a presence in the Mandate. It is rather like saying that Enron went through a cost-benefit analysis of halting trading. As for the Holocaust, apart from eradicating many possible future Israelis what bearing would this have on 1948? I know it is popular nowdays to claim that the West was somehow overcome with remorse but there is absolutely no evidence of this and if you read some of the comments of British officials, including Kirkbride, Glubb and Bevin there is a massive amount of disproof. The UK DID try to stand in the way of the UN decision. It refused to allow immigration of Jews under its control in Cyprus. It actively interfered in Jewish military activity and armed the armies of Iraq, Jordan and Egypt. It refused to recognise Israel when it declared independence, it blockaded the Yishuv from getting arms. It tried to the get UNSCOP decision annulled. I fail to see what short of donning SS uniforms and goosestepping the British government could have done to make their views clearer. It is a truly heroic interpretation to say in any way that the Brits "facilitated" Israeli independence. What next did the US "facilitate" Vietnamese reunification after 1973? Massive pressure was put on Israel not to declare independence, especially by the UK government. They declared anyway and the sole reason Israel exists today is because it won the war that had started in 1947 - with mainly communist weaponry. Arab reservations are only that they don't accept Israel should exist at all, it is not a matter of borders, 1947, 48 or 67. 1967 convinced the Arabs that they could not defeat Israel and as such it was a fact of life. Britain didn't fight a "proxy" war against Israel, it fought a direct war. The Arab Legion was to all intents an purposes a branch of the British army. When Israel invaded the Sinai in December 1948, the Brits invoked the mutual defence pact with Egypt and intervened. The last casualties of the 1948 were 3 RAF spitfires. The kindest thing you can say is that they slightly prefered Israel to a Husseini run Palestine but much rather that one of their Arab puppets to have the land - which they repeated tried to get to happen such as when Lord Moyne tried to get the negev handed over to Egypt. Jordan didn't invade land ceded to Israel because it was fought back with the loss of around 2000 Israeli soldiers or 1/3 the total. They did conquer East Jerusalem which was meant to be joint sovereignity as well as Bethlehem. It is rather like claiming that Hitler didn't invade Moscow. The two main powers of 1948 were respectively the first and second nations to recognise Israel. The USSR armed Israel - without which it would not exist and as such the only country in the world that can honestly claim to have "facilitated" Israeli independence is the USSR. As for borders, whilst they could be some debate, albeit rather weak, about whether the attack on Egypt in 1967 was defensive or offensive, there is no such debate about East Jerusalem and the West Bank or the Golan - the only bits still occupied. This was land conquered in a defensive war and plenty of countries have their borders decided by wars - the only reason the arab country borders having moved much is because they don't win wars but not for lack of trying - only Israel outrages people. One prime example would be the cutting up of Bosnia... These are what should be taught in the history book, rather than some pathetic attempt at "narrative".

What a hoot. I just got finished saying that Islam exhorts its followers to lie to "infidels" to advance jihad, and "Rafi" suddenly changes his name to "Tony" so as to be able to offer a "third party" "Christian" view (with the name Tony). Nice try, "Rony," but you have just illustrated my point far better than I could have.

Thanks, Danny, for the names you supplied. I guess I just don't expect that ANYONE is silly enough to believe the Arab "narrative," and so I would have had to look to do some spot research. "You think that we've been the most moral, which is more than likely true, but are nevertheless unable to face reality - just how secure are you in our morality?" Very secure, thanks. Even our Jewish fanatics (i.e., the Haredim) are less violent and gruesome than the typical Muslim. But I prefer to err on the side of the Jews. That's because I'm fairly well adjusted. ""You seem to have decided to make yerida to Toronto. Good. You will be more happy sitting on Eskimo land." - Says the American. " Yes, Yoni, but I don't mind having kicked out the Indians, and I am not flagellating myself for my immorality. YOU are, though. You are being hypocritical, though, because while Jews have by far a better claim on Israeli land (all of it), you're a Johnny-come-lately to a land that was brutally seized by those who really were indigenous. I guess you don't see the irony or hypocrisy here.

I think our difference is one of interpretation and evaluation (or imputing) of motives rather than of matters of fact. However, when you say "In 1948 the UK was going through one of it's regular post-war financial crisises.", this is irrelevant since the UK decision to end its Mandate was taken at the end of 1946 or beginning of 1947. At that point, having enough to deal with in India, financial concerns as such were probably not the main issue. It seems to have been prompted by Jewish insurgence. Moreover, refusing entry to Jewish immigrants was causing US aid to the UK to be held up. There must have been overriding reasons of "National Interest" to explain why they didn't just give us what we wanted earlier. There was too much at stake here to be able to attribute the unhelpful policies to prejudices of individual decision-makers (and I'm aware that many were unsympathetic). You have more or less said it yourself: British intervened more directly as soon as a communist armed state came too close to the Suez canal. Nonetheless the UK yielded and let the UN make the running, nor did it delay withdrawal. That is already saying a lot: they left the field to us. That is quite a bit for a global power which was withdrawing from colonies for the first time in something like 300 years, was snubbed by the UDI, and moreover didn't trust the new state to act in its interests. Did the UK obstruct? Depends: the policies may not have been conceived of for that reason. I hadn't been aware of the level of losses against Jordan. With all due respect, Jordan invading Jerusalem is par for the course for having declared UDI without guarantees and where this declaration was regarded as a provocation by the Arab neighbours. There wasn't much alternative, but one couldn't expect the neighbouring countries to abide by a plan which they hadn't agreed to. Re: Arab "reservations" -- I was referring to the Arabs still making much of legal nicities which were overtaken by history 60 years ago. This was meant ironically in the context in which they wouldn't respect any if they could get away with it.