The Inquisitor,
Just for the sake of accuracy....
When Palestine was partitioned, the Jewish population were allocated slightly more than half of the area, despite constituting slightly less than half of the population. The Arabs were understandably miffed about this, the more so since that Jewish population had been inflated by massive illegal immigration (exceeding the targets set during the Mandate, on which Arab consent had been founded), and since the Jewish state would include the most fertile parts.
The Arabs were stupid enough to go to war in '48, and in doing so lost much of the territory that the UN had allocated to them, though (thanks largely to the Arab legion) they clung on to the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
They did not sell their land then decide they wanted it back 20 years later, after Israel had 'improved it'. They wanted back what was taken from them from the moment it was lost, and they fought and died, and killed (in some appalling acts of terrorism) in an impotent attempt to recover it for the next three decades.
For many years, the Palestinians and their allies stupidly and unreasonably claimed the whole of the former Palestine, did not acknowledge Israel's right to exist, and swore to wipe Israel off the map. Naturally even the 'Eurofag Liberals' tended to take Israel's side, as the Israelis were the citizens of a partial democracy (the most democratic state in the region), who were of European origin like us, and who were under attack by unspeakable totalitarian neighbours and filthy domestic terrorists.
The Israelis took the West Bank in '67, along with Gaza, further expanding the State of Israel by force of arms. But for as long as the Arab side wanted the destruction of Israel, Euroweenies like me felt that Israel was entirely justified in its actions.
But in recent years, even the PLO have dropped their outright demands for the whole of Palestine, and have not even demanded the territory that they were allocated by the UN in 1948.
After the work by Sadat in the 70s, and especially since Oslo, Palestinian demands have been relatively modest, amounting to something that falls short of a return to the pre-68 borders. A non-contiguous Palestinian state comprising Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem would seem to be entirely reasonable and just, and once Israel's right to exist was recognised, the Palestinian side deserved some modest payback.
The US failure to encourage Israel to accept such a solution has led to the intransigence that underlies the present problem. Without US support and subsidies, Israel would be forced to compromise.
Only a handful of nutters would deny that the unique suffering of the Jewish people between 1933-45 did not 'earn' them the right to a state of their own in the Holy Land. That's rather different to having the entire Holy Land as their own exclusive state, however, and the more reasonable might also recognise that the suffering of the Palestinians might perhaps earn them the right to a state of their own on the West Bank, with East Jerusalem as their capital.
I'm not equating the Holocaust with what has happened to the Palestinians since '48, nor am I suggesting for one moment that the Palestinians have an equal moral claim to the former Palestine to that of the Jewish people. But I am suggesting that they have some small claim.
I'd also challenge the idea that Israel was founded on 'purchased land' - ask the survivors of Deir Yassin and elsewhere whether they sold their land - while the claim that Israelis 'made the desert bloom' is also flawed - lateral extraction of water from underneath Palestinian land (for example) blurs the achievement somewhat. And being more efficient farmers than your neighbours does not entitle you to their land, otherwise France would be another English county - an annex to Kent!