"but also agree with the post, that the dispossessed and the refugees were used as pawns by neighbouring Arab states to artificially prolong the conflict"

How was that done? By NOT moving these people off of land they owned and lived on. I don't understand that - why should they have to move? And how is not forcing them out of their homes making them a "pawn" in a conflict?

"It's not a simple picture of foreign invaders/settlers brutally kicking the natives off their land."

How is that? I realize that it it tempting to look at the issue as a regional problem, AND regional problems are expressed as a series of more local events.

Assume there is a presence of Blue Martians in my neighborhood, and they take over the local government. Then deny me the rights the Blue Martians have. And force me out of my house, telling me to move into the neighboring county where there are no Blue Martians. So that this area can become completely Blue Martian.

And I don't want to leave. It's my house, I've lived here a long time, I like it.

How is that different than what the Israeli government is doing? And how is it reasonable? And why isn't that "ethnic cleansing"?

Now, supposing the neighboring county has enough people, and an aging infrastructure, a growing population of it's own, and doesn't want more immigrants. They don't want me to move.

I shouldn't have to move in the first place, so how am I a pawn?

What is ignored is "the critical, central religious importance of Israel to Jews for thousands of years."

That to me is a big, so what? I'm not aware of any population which hasn't been displaced from time to time. My ancestors started out of Africa, moved through the Middle East, into Europe and thence to the US. I'm rather proud of my ancestry, wasn't very long ago my grandparents left, and I'd like to live over there.

No one is saying that I can go back and displace some folks in Europe, take back the old ancestral farm, because it's very important to me.

Regarding the "WANT THEM DEAD" thought. Undoubtedly the Palestinians would like the Israelis gone. If, as you say, there has been a continuous Jewish presence in the area for thousands of years, at one time there must have been at least a detente.

However, the Palestinians do not have an army, navy, air force, armor, artillery, or nuclear weapons. The Palestinians cannot stop Israeli tanks from roaming at will through their neighborhoods, cannot even stop the Israelis from robbing their banks. This idea that the Israelis are going to be driven into the sea is silly, at best.

Prior to the present round of suicide bombings which started in 2000, the Palestinians were having 25 people killed for every Israeli who they killed. That is a slaughter on the order of the Native Americans. A kill ratio like that is not your basic self-defense, it is bordering upon extermination.

With the advent of suicide bombings, the kill ration is still 3 and 4 to one in favor of the Israelis. Only desperate people will do that.

Israel targets "militants". In the first place, what is a "militant"? Someone who is trying to protect their people? Second, EVERY attack by Israelis is described as being against a "militant", even rocket attacks against occupied apartment houses.

The bulldozing of innocent peoples homes is a war crime. The denial of permits to build new housing is evidence of "cleansing". The arbitrary shutting off of water and electrical power to entire villages is just to make life difficult for them. The Israelis do all this as a matter of routine, and, frankly, it ain't right. Bound to create some bitterness.

Anyway, that's it for now. I believe Israel should be there, and stay there. And I believe the Palestinians are human, and deserving of rights. Not to be "cleansed". Not to be moved.

And even though the New Testament isn't observed in the Jewish faith, the spiritual law, "You shall reap what you sow" still applies.

Arf