On the contrary, Moshe, you're actually right - at last!!!

Submitted by Sword of Islam & The Babies of Beslan (United Kingdom), Feb 4, 2007 at 14:34

Submitted by Moshe, Feb 3, 2007 at 15:37

"And yes, the British took Jerusalem from the Turks during WW1. You insist that the Arabs also participated, but from some reason you forget that Jews also participated. And unlike Arabs, Jews fought only on the British side."

- Finally! And had they not taken it, with or without the 1000 Jewish troops who fought as a British batallion or the additional 100 Jewish troops who fought under an Arab flag, Israel would not now have the percentage of Palestine that it now occupies - prior historical or religious antecedence being neither here nor there, given that 'possession is nine-tenths of the law' . Philosophical and/or rhetorical issues don't enter into it.

The 'right' to be there has never been the subject. Had Palestine not been taken by the British there would have been no Balfour Declaration. Without the Balfour Declaration there would have been no mandate to form a Jewish homeland. Without this mandate there would be no 'state' of Israel. You may dislike how the British managed the situation, but the same people who think that such things are easy are the same people who thought that US & UK troops would take, reconstruct and leave Iraq & Afghanistan in 6 months. Q.E.D. I'd actually given up on you getting it.

Unless you can find a flaw in the above paragraph that doesn't rely on 'eternal' or divine imperatives, that is......................................

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".