The settlements are part of a larger issue of land displacement. The quoted peel commission specifically cited Arab fears of land acquisition and immigration. Of course, by the time of the Peel commission, the conflict was already 50 years old. Don Peretz describes the early conflict by stating: "Tensions began after the first Zionist settlers arrived in the 1880s. Quarrels broke out between the new settlers and neighboring villages over grazing, crop and other land issues. Disputes also arose when Jewish settlers purchased land from absentee Arab owners, leading to dispossession of the peasants who cultivated it. As the number of Jewish settlements increased and as Arabs became aware of the Zionist intention to establish a Jewish homeland, opposition to the movement spread among the fellahin [peasants], urban notables, intellectuals and the merchant class. The lack of familiarity of the European settlers with traditional Arab customs often stirred conflict. At times, there were armed altercations between Jewish farmers and Arab herdsmen when the former interfered with cattle or flocks that strayed onto Jewish cultivated areas. One of the first clashes occurred at Peta Tikva, the oldest Jewish colony, established in 1878. When the settlers denied grazing rights to the neighboring Arab village, its inhabitants attacked the colony. The fear of peasant dispossession became a central issue in Arab nationalism." Rashid Khalidi describes this period as "Palestinian peasant resistance starting more than a century ago was the first harbinger of a conflict which throughout has focused on control of land, and has been animated on the Palestinian side by a dynamic often propelled from below rather than from above. It was peasants driven off their farmland by Zionist land purchases, mainly from absentee landlords, in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, who first understood the nature of the process of colonization affecting Palestine. Their struggle for their rights in turn alerted the urban intellectuals who thereafter played a prominent role in the opposition to Zionism, even as they helped to shape Palestinian identity."

Arabs will still try to fight. They will still reject Shalom, Salaam, Peace.

Mr Kasnett has re-stated the unvarnished historical facts, and many thanks to Ynet for publishing them in English as apparently they are not taught in European or N. American University history departments. I doubt if this will influence the thinking of the many anti-Israel/Zionist/Jewish talkbackers who love to vent in these fora!!

Which shows that opposition to Israel predated the occupationa nd even the state. It is important that more and more people are familiar with the historic facts before jumping to the all too familar "it's all because of the occupation" conclusion. For more info on the conflict and more, visit www.mesi.org.uk

With such a simple minded thesis, he will remain an MA student for a long time to come

Mr. Kasnett is stressing what most world leaders and Israel's detractors conventiently ignore, and what most of the world is ignorant of. Israel needs more people like Mr. Kasnett on the Hasbara front to argue her case to the world. Well done Mr. Kasnett

Ancient, long-established Jewish communities, like Hebron and Safed, that pre-date Islam, Palestinians or any other arab revisionist excuses (like that posted in comment #1), came under genocidal attack, especially during the Arab murderous riots of 1929. No settlements then either.

submarine. If someone buys land, they are not obligated to hire the people that formaly worked the land. Call it disposition or what ever you want. I don't know what planet you learned your law on, but those working the land have no claim to the land unless they owned it. And if they did own it, what right do they have after they sell it? Just because someone uses something or works somewhere, doesn't mean they have any right to say what happens to it. Maybe their uncaring Arab landlords should have done something for them, but not those that bought the land. Maybe when you sell something, you feel you have the right to take it back or tell the buyer what to do with it. Good luck getting that to stand up in any court any where. Maybe you feel if a company or business you work for is sold, you still have a right to work there if you are not hired by the new owner. GOOD LUCK. The owners who sold this land knew exactly what they were doing, and there were plenty of examples for everyone to see what this was about. So how come the Arabs don't hold their own responsible? And you support the opposite logic.

Showing that Arabs dread the moment their "excuses" to murder en mass is over.

The Arab charge that the Jews have obtained too large a proportion of good land cannot be maintained. Much of the land now carrying orange groves was sand dunes or swamp and uncultivated when purchased...there was at the time at least of earlier sales little evidence that the owners possessed either the resources or training needed to develop the land. Jews paid more than $20 million at 1936 rates) to arab landowners, mostly estate holders...In 1944, Jews payed between $1000 and $1100 per acre in Palestine, mostly for arid or semi-arid land; in the same year, rich black soil in Iowa was selling for about $110 per acre (U.S. Dept. of Agriculture)" - The Peel Commission's report in Land Ownership in Palestine, 1880-1948 In 1920, Labor Zionist leader David Ben-Gurion expressed his concern about the Arab fellahin, Ben-Gurion said "under no circumstances must we touch land belonging to fellahs or worked by them." "Only if a fellah leaves his place of settlement," Ben-Gurion added, "should we offer to buy his land, at an appropriate price." "They [Jews] paid high prices for the land, and in addition they paid to certain of the occupants of those lands a considerable amount of money which they were not legally bound to pay." - John Hope Simpson, May 1930 It is made quite clear to all, both by the map drawn up by the Simpson Commission and by another compiled by the Peel Commission, that the Arabs are as prodigal in selling their land as they are in useless wailing and weeping." - Transjordan's King Abdullah, in his memoirs On Rashid Khalidi's quote: a.) What urban intellectuals? The ones in the yet to be built Haifa or among the nearly non-existent population in Jerusalem? b.) Can Rashidi name one other "colonization" movement that involved land purchases and private development? c.) How can one be dispossessed of something they never actually possessed?

You are either a fool, stupid or just pure evil. STEALING ANOTHER PEOPLES LAND IS THE ROOT OF THE PROBLEM !

Ive just noticed you are a student of "diplomacy" Try another career friend like propagandist.

Oh well, if Rashid Khalidi says so then it must be true. Or perhaps you're not aware of the fact that Khalidi once worked as a paid mouthpiece for the late, unlamented Yasser Arafat and still defends the use of suicide bombings against civilians.

In 1980-s the Arabs living in Palestine had been conquered people. They had been living under Turks for 400 years. So, as conquered and subjugated people, they were in no position to dictate anything to the Jews who lived there or moved in. Jews had at least as much right to the land as Arabs. They fought and Jews won. The rest is history. When it comes to nations the right to the land is something a nation acquires through the struggle. I wish current Israeli rulers understood that and take as much land as they can without apologizing.

as that is exactly the point to which the Palestinian Arabs wish to turn back the clock, prior to the founding of the 1st modern Jewish settlement, Petach Tikvah. It would be very useful for your post to be read by Lefitsts in Israel who are under the mistaken impression that the Arab mind distinguishes between Jewish settlements built after 1967 and settlements built 1878-1967.

What about you? Everytime,you come on to an Israeli website all you ever do is spew the same old worn out antiIsrael/ antiJewish propaganda of the extreme left. Mr.Kasnett has told the truth in his article,something you wouldn't know if it hit you right in the face.

I concluded from my visit to Egypt, Jordan, and Israel this past April that the Israelis should not give up the West Bank. They are the only ones making any good of the land. And they are the only ones that support democracy. As a visitor, I found the Arabs in general to be friendlier than the Jews. But my Jewish acquaintances emphasized over and over their sense of being under siege. I think that the Arabs should participate in the Israeli democracy and mold the government to their benefit. The USA has a conglomeration of people who were often historically at odd s(e.g., North vs South, Irish vs English, French vs German, black vs white, Catholic vs Protestants) and makes a reasonable success at getting along.

Israel kasnett displays such a wonderful example of double-think it is hard to discern if he has duped himself into believing his own propaganda. what i am talking about is his use of the word "settlement" and his lack of understanding of historical relevancy. in 1937 rishon le'ziyon was a settlement, for example. because it has become an important satellite of tel aviv in 2008 doesn't mean it wasn't a settlement in 1937. just like kfar sharmayhu was a akin to the caravans that routinely spring up in judea-samaria/west bank back in the early 20s. the crux of the problem has always been reconciling jewish settlement with arab loss of land so a solution must be found to this fundamental and key problem for there to be peace on a side note what is most annoying about arguments like Mr Kasnett's is that it proposes no solution. these arguments seem to play well to hawkish non-domiciled jews and evangelical christians (perhaps he wants a job in a think-tank in washington?) but when you look at them at heart only offer up israel its own destruction as a jewish state. to not relinquish the settlements in the west bank and instead grow them will de facto integrate 3-odd million arabs into israel proper. result: jewish minority to not relinquish the settlements in the west bank, grow them, and committ genocide against the arab inhabitants will result in isolation, sanctions, resource strangulation, and civil war creating a failed state (or a western bombing campaign and invasion followed by civil war and failed state). result: end of jewish state

If you always think what you always thought you are gonna get what you always got. If we don't look for transformation in our thinking about this conflict then we will be stuck in it forever. And for those who want to live in a perpetual motion time centrifuge, go back to Avraham, or Joshua and then sadly the rest of the world is right, we have always been stealing this land, often times with great brutality, from whoever dared lived in it. Thats a class act.

"to not relinquish the settlements in the west bank, grow them, and committ genocide against the arab inhabitants will result in isolation" Yes, those Jewish rapscallions are always plotting the death of others, aren't they? By living in settlements, they are contributing to the genocide of Arab inhabitants, a fine logic. It is preferable to expel hundreds of thousands of Jews from their homes, and then wash your hands of the guilt.

Frankly, your totally specious use of the term "genocide" does nothing to enhance your argument and only serves to insult every single victim of actual genocide...none of whom happen to be Palestinian.

It's not necessary to go back thousands of years to discuss a century old conflict. I refuse to acknowledge that there was any theft of land when there is a history of land purchases. Jake (#18) mentions Petach Tikvah which when it was bought was malaria-infested swamp land that the Jews drained, farmed and eventually built into one of Israel's most populous cities. What right have you or any Arab to complain that it was stolen? What right do you have to even claim the Arabs had relatives living there? # 1 references a quote claiming Arabs were concerned that because the Jews living in Petach Tikvah didn't allow neighboring Arabs' livestock to chew up their fields that they would be dispossessed. Whatever that means. Dispossessed of land they knew they never owned. A part of their beloved Balestine that they allowed to become an uninhabitable swamp. No, the Arabs want to steal Jewish land by bombing buses and pizzerias. Take Kfar Hashiloach , for example, a piece of land bought and developed by the Jews from Yemen. It is entirely inhabited by Arab today. How did that happen? I assure you it wasn't sold to them. Do the original inhabitants get their "right of return" to their truly stolen property? Every Israeli Jewish citizen deserves a Nobel Peace Prize for how patient and kindly they've dealt with the Arabs for all they've done.

The Jews have the right to build and live freely in their country. We have modern political rights dating back to the First World War: "After World War I, the borders and countries that today make up the Middle East were created - Iran, Iraq, Syria, etc. Modern Israel was created the same way! The countries of the world charged Britain [in the San Remo Resolution of 1920, based on the League of Nations and Balfour Declaration] with creating a 'national homeland' for the Jewish People, based on the 'historical rights' of the Jews, and calling for Jewish immigration and settlement here. Only a quarter of the land, including Hevron and Shechem, originally designated for the Jews by the League of Nations, was left for us. The historical and political truth about rights and legitimity can be read in its 5 parts at : http://xrl.us/bi5c6

Its not propaganda, ITS FACT. stealing Palestine IS the root of the problem.

The big question. Did the state of Israel have peace before the settlements or did Jewish people have peace in the land before they became a nation. I have a picture of my best friends grand father wearing an Arab attire in order to travel safely throughout the land. They Jews had to have an army or security (haganah). Why would you need security with such peace. I am being sarcastic. I don't buy that argument. The region is looking for a scapegoat and we bought it

If the truth sets one free, then you are in a very deep dungeon indeed with a life sentence and no possibility for parole. You know very well that there was no country of Palestine to steal. You also know very well that when the first modern Jewish settlement was built in the Land of Israel, on legally purchased land, in 1878, Petach Tikvah, by Jews from Jerusalem, there was not even a MANDATE of Palestine. And yet Arabs started attacking it almost immediately. If you would have walked up to an Arab in 1878 and said "This is Palestine", he would have given you a rather puzzled look, followed by a look of deep suspicion.

The root of the problem is that Arabs cannot tolerate Jews in their midst if they are not ruling over them. Settlements of no settlements; Israel or no Israel. There was no Israel in the 1880's There were a relatively small number of Jews in Palestine- yet the Arabs felt the need to attack them. It wasn't as tif here were so many 'fellahs' and they had nowhere to go. Have you read Mark Twain's description of the country in the 1800's? Relatively uninhabited, run down neglected. Not much interest by the Arab/Muslim world in their 'beloved Palestine' (and Jerusalem for that matter) until the Jews came in, (and yes, bought the land at inflated prices from which the landowners proifted nicely) worked it , built up the cities and made it into the the diesreable place that the Arabs then decided should really be theirs.