YirmiYahu, I strongly second what you said in your next to last post.
You should know that there are elder Palestinians who still wear a necklace around their neck, with the keys of the houses they were evicted from attached to it.
I'm afraid a proper discussion on the topic is futile without taking into consideration two important points.
First this false Jewish/Arab (or Palestinian) dichotomy. I frankly do not wish to bother pursuing the discourse if we continue to employ this erroneous terminology and misleading suggestion of two mutually exclusive categories (Language is the first casualty in a war, whether of words or of arms) The idea of a Jewish "people" rests entirely in the lofty flights of people's imaginations. The proper classifications would speak of Arabs or Palestinians (and by Palestinians I mean the native inhabitants of the land that goes by that name, using the word isolated from any modern nationalist or statist context) who hold to the Jewish religion. In my conversing with Israelis (which include Arabs; an indication that Israeli is an artificial identity and appelation whose entire legitimacy and worth rests solely on its connection with the entity known as the Israeli government), I make a crucial and sharp distinction between Palestinian Jews (regardless of their loyalties to the Israeli state) and Jews of foreign origins. The entire matter rests upon this discussion which makes all the difference in the crux of the issue, determining whether the core matter is a Palestinian civil war or a war between colonizers and colonized. Were the country known as Israel set up by native Palestinian Arab Jews, not involving immigrants, you would have what in essence is a civil war, an entirely different scenario altogether. That is not the case as reality bears it out.
Hence, posing the question as to whether Christians are better off under Muslim rule (you people have to read up on the complicated contemporary political landscape of the Middle East, involving rivalries between Islamists, nationalists, and Ba'thists; the caliphate system is gone and naively simplistic anachronisms disqualify the validity of any discussion; political history in the region entered a new era that must be ceaselessly studied) or Jewish rule is to utterly ignore the matter of one side being composed of natives, and the other of the Toms, Dicks, and Harry's from every corner of the globe, including Peru as it seems.* And justice demands before anything that the natural inhabitants of a country be given back their own stolen land, before the matter of how rule factors in viz a viz the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim contingents of that native population, is considered.
*Ha' aretz ran a cover story on how the desperate reliance of the Israeli government on immigrants due to the typically Western contraceptive mentality of Israeli society inhibiting the maintainance of adequate reproduction replacement levels to maintain a Jewish majority, has translated into proselytizing amongst South American natives and "returning" them to Israel.
The second point involves a conflict between the old and new world orders, and an imperative need on the part of Western observers to break out of their uselessly irrelevant paradigms. In addition to the the fact that this strip of land is impoverished and bereft of rich resources, the Middle East is not America. The state and passport are not the cornerstones of identity (and we must cease our constant thinking within the framework of nation states), and the anomaly known as the immigrant nation is anathema in our part of the world, not to mention untenable in a poor region. Identity is rooted in the tribe, culture, the ancestral chain of tradition, heritage, and blood, and very importantly, the land; hence, all these supposed revelations about the depravity of Arabic states and rulers means squat and is a useless tangent. Those who come from small villages, repositories of living cultures, and lived their lives toiling and farming the soil would be familiar with what I'm talking about. If some hooligan with a weapon wishes to evict me from my property, his reward is two bullets between the eyes. This red herring known as the "myth of the Palestinian identity" is propagandish rubbish that functions as a diversionary tactic. What constitutes the Palestinian identity first and foremost is being a native of that land, independant of the question of whether there is such a thing as some unique Palestinian culture, the search for which is hardly germane to the issue, as opposed to a regional form of the Arabic culture. The ancestral tie to the land is what matters.
As for the British mandate, its first and primary responsibility as jurisdictional administrators of the region was towards the Palestinians: to act in accordance with the interests of the inhabitants of the region and none other's. National sovereignty (another casualty of the new order) and a right to preservation of identity provides people with a right to consider outsiders as unwanted intruders, and to determine who is welcome and who isn't. The British, pandering to these ambitious foreign Zionists, betrayed their role as administrators bound to act as trustees faithful to the well-being of Palestinians, and set their rediculously outlandish political arrangements with outsiders as a higher priority than the interests of the indigenous people they were supposed to be protecting, and these condemnable deeds find their start back with the Jewish immigration to Palestine that began before World War II. 1948 isn't the magical date (and neither is 1054 as we know); the British doublecrossed us from the time these influxes of immigration began.
Note: Pardon some of the bad grammar. It's late up here.
In IC XC