books, books, books.... I've read plenty, most I admit from the Jewish perspective because they have assiduously pursued their version of events. They have not all biased their opinions some (though few) have presented a good account of their history. There is little in comparison from the Arab side.... and let's not forget history is written by the victors.
Now you can argue the case from a legalistic point of view whether the San Remo 'agreement' was legitimate - but like Freedman says: the British had as much right to give Palestine to the Jews as it would have to grant Japan to the Irish. And you will of course remember that al-Husseini was in fact appointed Mufti of Jerusalem by the British - actually by a Jewish Brit. The origins of the birth of Israel are murky indeed. What is not in doubt because the British later saw what was happening with mass Jewish immigration displacing the Arab citizens in the region, is that they washed their hands of the whole affair handing the matter over to the United Nations who then drew up a plan for partition of Palestine between Israelis and Arabs.
see, your post was reasonable until you talked of my wish to 'drive them into the sea' - stupid comment.
anyhow, I'm not here to educate the likes of diligent whose mind is clearly opposed to any criticism of Israel - perhaps he should read some of the more recent revisionist Israeli historians..... not all Israelis are happy with their history and certainly not with Zionism.
