They want back the territory lost in the '67 war.

So it's not a reversal of conquest they seek.


That sounds to me like the definition of reversal of conquest.

As for


It wasn't stolen, they abandoned it [...] in 1948 at the behest of their fellow

Arabs in Jordan, Syria, etc. They were to leave while the Arab states
forced the Jews off their lands [...] But the Arabs lost the war, and those
that had abandoned their land within the new state of Israel were now
homeless. The Arabs that didn't abandon their land are now citizens of
Israel.


Arabs fought the Jews and lost. It may be a tactical error, it may be
trickery,
it may be lack of firepower, it may be lots of things. But they were there,
there was a war, they lost, they want it back.

Whether WE see it that way is one thing, but THEY see it that way.
So, how should I decide who's way of seeing it is "correct"?

Jose


--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)