Of course, you fail to mention originally the Ottoman Turks disenfranchised the Jews and relocated various Muslim Arab groups into Israel. Over centuries these disparate groups plus some local Muslims evolved into today's Palestinian ethnicity through centuries of "blending". The introduction of Muslim groups was an intentional part of the Ottoman’s strategy to prevent an internal uprising based on religious differences. Bottomline, the historical argument favors the Jews, unless you believe in selective history.

Concurrent, with this process, Jews were exiled and forced to move to other places to dilute their ability to operate as a "nation". In that way, the Ottomans while not extinguishing the Jews as a people, but rather they attempted to extinguish the Jews as a nation. The attempt by Jews to regain their "nation" is referred to as Zionism.

So, filling in some of the gaps in your rendition of history, it is time to talk.

I did not dispute the right of Palestinians to go to war with Israel. The land of Israel is claimed by both parties. When diplomacy fails, wars become the ultimate tool of diplomacy. However, when nations resort to war, rules have been developed to try to protect noncombatants. A nation's noncombatants accrue "their rights" based on their nation complying with those rules... including wearing uniforms.

If there is no way to separate the combatants from noncombatants under the rules of war, noncombatants are not afforded any rights. They become collateral damage, no matter how tragic that is.

The rules of war stipulate even in this instance a nation cannot target noncombatants, but it need not restrain itself if it has reason to believe enemy soldiers are hiding among the population.

While we label Hamas as a terrorist group based on their tactics, they are better seen as "guerillas" that use the local population as cover. In war, "cover" is used to minimize the chance that the soldiers will get killed. But clearly, "the cover" (in this instance, women and children) are subject to get hit.

So, when Israel retaliates against military targets and innocent women and children are injured or killed by virtue of those actions aimed at Hamas soldiers, it is Hamas that is guilty of using them as "cover", not Israel going after enemy soldiers.

The same is also true in Israel. If Israel positions its military resources in such a way that they are intentionally located so any attack on them will produce civilian casualties, then Israel would be guilty of deaths arising from Palestinian attacks.

Those people sympathetic to the Palestinian cause are ignoring the morality and ethics of the tactics Palestinians are using in pursuit of their goals. This is another example of believing "the ends justify the means", that belief is behind much of the evil in the world.

Sorry, no matter how just you might believe in the cause Palestinians are fighting for, it does not justify the means they have been employing.

Have a nice day... and give thought to the difference between one's beliefs regarding which party is right in this dispute and the limits that exist when attempting to assert one's position.