I have to tell you, I really do appreciate this dialogue- you also seem well-informed, open minded and very intelligent. Compared with much of the ignorance that I've seen on this issue, this discussion is very refreshing, and I hope mutually rewarding. I had never seen much of what you posted before. That said, I still have some comments.
As you know, I'm sure, in the Jewish religion the land of Israel is very central- it has always been conceived of as the jewish homeland. It is no real secret that most jews in touch with their religion in any deeper level would, in a perfect world, like to have their homeland again in its entirety. You quote ben-Gurion talking about the necessity of displacing arabs, and of gaining more land. He also said that he hoped the british would do this. He may have, in his heart, hoped for such things, but the important thing is that it wasn't done- the Jews in Palestine didn't displace any arabs with force, they purchased the land, often at excorbitant prices. In the course of the 48 war some arabs were displaced- more fled upon the urging of arab leaders. The ones that were displaced were displaced when their villages were enemy bases, or when the location was militarily critical. The refugees from those villages were still not forced to leave Palestine. Obviously, many arabs remained, and they became Israeli-arabs. The refugees that fled (again, 67% of which never saw an Israeli soldier) were then forced to remain in refugee camps instead of being absorbed in any arab country, where they have remained until this day. They had been urged, and bullied, to leave by arab leaders, and then completely abandoned.
I have in no way suspected you of any sort of anti-semitism, you have presented valid evidence and points and backed them up. I respect your intellectual honesty, your knowledge base and your respectful attitude, I really mean that. I'd like to think I am mature enough to have an honest discussion of history without resorting to unfounded accusations, to end the discussion if it doesn't go my way :-).
It is true what you said, that countries like America, Britain, etc. also are not so distinctive from each other. America has no 1 ethnicity, it is a combination of its parts. Obviously, not all legitimate nations in the world are founded only on racial or cultural uniqueness. The significance about the the Palestinians, is that they were made a nation arbitrarily- they were artificially nationalized as a political weapon. They never identified as a separate nation at any point before 1967, if I am correct (or perhaps a few years before, as the PLO was founded in 64 or 65). Before 1967, when Jordan controlled the West Bank, and Egypt the Gaza Strip, there was never any sign of nationalism at all. The refugees never demanded a state, or even autonomy. They considered themselves as part of the Arab nation (the arab countries themselves were mostly carved up by the british in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. There were no nation states in "Arabia" before then, a feudal tribal system was the dominant political format). I am not saying that due to the lack of a common history, language, or distinct ethnicity or culture necessarily means that they should not have a state- after all, after 55 years in refugee camps, they do indeed identify and see themselves as their own nation- this has been driven taught to them for 55 years. I think they should be given a state somewhere, obviously some solution is necessary, they can't be left in those camps forever, kept in intentionally poor condition. As human beings they deserve a government that will actually serve their humanitarian needs, and not steal from them, abuse them, and use them, exploiting their suffering for political goals.
As for the refusers, I did read the personal accounts- I know that they refuse (assuming they are not on anyone's payroll, which, sadly, many groups like "Peace now" are in Israel), because they feel that what they are required to do in the Army, in occupying the territories, is immoral. They hate having to carry out a military occupation. I don't blame them for not liking it, I have not met an Israeli soldier that was ever happy about this. I'm sure it is pretty ugly and terrible, having to impose curfews, having to demolish houses of terrorists, that many people live in, etc. However, as long as there is terrorism, and these places are hotbeds of hatred and violence, then Israel has no choice but to control these places and defend themselves. With the Oslo agreements, Israel actually ended its occupation, giving the Palestinians autonomy. The PA was set up. The Israelis even armed the Palestinian police force. Those guns were later turned on Israeli civilians.
It wasn't until last year, during "Operation Defensive Shield", that the territories were re-occupied, in response to the wave of horrific suicide bombing, like the one that killed almost 30 people at the Passover seder in Netanya, including Holocaust survivors, the suicide bomber who walked into a girls Bat Mitzvah celebration (ceremony of adulthood, when a girl reaches 13 years old), killing half of the girls family. He was shot before detonating himself. The list of attacks goes on indefinitely, but those are two particularly horrific ones I remember from the time.
Israel does not want to be in the territories. They tried pulling out, and it was the terrorism that forced them to go back in. Even Ariel Sharon does not want to remain there, he has said "we cannot rule over another people indefinitely". It is basically unanimous in Israel that a solution needs to be found, that the military control of the Palestinians is demoralizing and wrong. The question is, what choice does Israel have? No one wants this. Terrorist attacks against Jewish civilians have been taking place non-stop since the 1800s, in the region. In the past, whenever the Israelis pulled out of an area, giving security control back to the palestinians, it always resulted in more dead Israelis. No government can stand by and let its citizens be murdered in pizza parlors, on buses, on the street, etc. If there was a more humanitarian alternative, I am sure they would take it. And again- the refusers are a pretty marginal group, I posted the statistics about Israel's military. The number is pretty insignificant. To put things more in context, when in recent military operations (defensive shield) Israel called up it's reservists, there was a 95% mobilization rate. That is almost the highest in Israeli history. Most Israelis know why they have to fight, even though they don't like doing it. They realize that they have no choice until the terror stops.
You said about the settlements, "what do you think the current residents should do as they're watching the patch of land they have left dwindle?" Well, again, you have to understand the no settlements are being built on palestinian land. They are only built in undeveloped and uninhabited areas. The palestinians are not watching "their land" dwindle. It isn't their land. Legally, it isn't their land- there was never any sovereign entity on the land before Israel, and under international law there is nothing illegal about the settlements.
You mention massacres on both sides- the only massacre carried out by jews that I am aware of was at Deir Yassin- and that has been since exploited by propagandists to smear Israel. It talks about it in the myths and facts as well, I haven't checked out the sources, it would probably be worthwhile. It wasn't premeditated, I know. They were forced to attack house to house in taking the village, which was filled with Fedayeen and Iraqi troops. Apparently, the arab fighters kept civilians in the houses as cover. There was firing from windows and doors, etc. The jewish soldiers tossed grenades into some houses, which unbeknownst to them killed civilians as well. In the course of the battle, they set up an evacuation route for the arab civilians. Among these, was an Iraqi soldier, dressed as a woman. after "she" "surrendered", he pulled out a gun and shot the jewish commander. The soldiers went nuts and started shooting everyone.
The raid was carried out by the Irgun and the Stern gang, of which you probably have heard of. They were a somewhat radicalized jewish group. They participated in many retaliatory bombings against british installations, though they gave warnings and did not attack civilian targets. They were still, however, hotheaded and unreliable soldiers. Here is a link to an article that discusses it- I know, you will probably hate where I found it, but it has sources and seems legit. BTW, i mentioned one particularly sickening one, but there were many, many massacres of the jewish settlers by their neighbors- there was never a period when there were no terror attacks, until this day.
http://www.zoa.org/pubs/DeirYassin.htm
I wasn't aware of the information you presented about Yehoshua Porath. I agree, that he probably isn't the best source for the real numbers for immigration. However, I have to disagree with you about the British, they are not reliable sources either. During the whole period of jewish immigration, the british were in a balancing act, trying to not offend the arabs (the infamous "white paper", which put harsh caps on jewish immigration, making it impossible for many jews to escape the Holocaust, was done to avoid angering the arabs). During WW2, the British were trying to get the arabs to revolt against the Ottomans, which were allied with the Nazis. They made many monetary and military gifts, concessions, and other gestures to try and shore up this support. It never came, until after it became clear that the Allies were winning the war. Among these gestures were the caps on Jewish immigration. If the British were publishing numbers, it is likely that they underestimated as much as possible, just as the Professor you quoted may have overestimated. As regards the palestinian arab refugees, the UN number is probably the most unbiased (the UN has since become extremely biased against Israel, due to the overwhelming number of arab states in the general assembly, oil politics in the Security council, and attempts to counter America, which is Israel's only strong ally, by China, France, Russia, etc.)
I'd like to mention, that there would have been a Palestinian state in 1948, if the Arabs hadn't insisted on a war of extermination. There also has not been any accounting for the fact that upwards of 600,000 Jewish refugees were created when they were thrown out of their homes in arab lands during the war. They lost everything, amidst pogroms and persecution, but Israel absorbed them and helped them get their lives back on track. No reparation payments were ever made, and today this basic fact, that there were refugees from both sides, is forgotten or ignored, simply because Israel did what every nation has done throughout history with their refugees. The palestinian refugees are the only refugees in history that have not been absorbed by any country(they could easily have been absorbed into arab countries, the language and culture is the same, and there is more than enough vacant land in the arab world). It is not Israel's fault that the Palestinian refugees exist today- it wasn't their fault that they were created. It isn't their responsibility to deal with them, and especially when there has been no justice in regard to the jewish refugees.
I'm sure that the myths and facts book obviously has a pro-Israel bias, as you rightly have noticed. I still think it contains a lot of valuable information and sources.
If you were interested in a more unbiased (the writer was originally hired by an arab foundation to unearth wrongs committed by the jewish settlers) book, that discusses the roots of the conflict, and the years of immigration, I'd recommend "From Time Immemorial", by Joan Peters. I haven't read it myself, but it is considered pretty damning to a lot of palestinian arguments. From reviews on Amazon I've read that she gets a bit worked up over her argument sometimes, but there are over a hundred pages of footnotes. Some reviewers said there was some inconsistency in some facts, as is typical of any history book, but that it is minor and does not sink her arguments or thesis.
All this aside, when it comes down to it, I don't see how having 2 states west of the jordan will lead to anything but war. The land is so small, and the conflict so deep, that I can't see how peace is possible at this point. If you're interested, there is another article that talks about the peace process, written by Daniel Pipes in 1990. He is a scholar who was on the American task force for counter-terrorism, he predicted 9/11 years before it happened, and he was just appointed to the US Institute of Peace. His website is
www.danielpipes.org, he has written a great deal about the middle east. In particular, the article I mentioned was this-
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/194.
And lastly, I'd recommend "A Durable Peace", by Benjamin Netanyahu. I'm sure you know who he is- he obviously is biased, but this book is a strong articulation of the hardline Israeli position, and is backed up with facts. He obviously is trying to convince the reader of his opinion, but he backs what he says up. I'd recommend the book strongly.
I look forward to your reply.