The historical facts completely fail to back up their claims to the land upon which the nation of Israel sits.
www.americanthinker.com
In addition to the points brought up in the article, it should be noted that after WWII the UN recognized Israel as a state. Granted, this has no
de jure effect. But, it does recognize the
de facto statehood that Israel had achieved. It is in every way a valid nation-state, and a few unhappy Arabs are not going to change that. Second, there is no "Palestine", and there never has been. Third, many tribes occupied that land over the centuries. Hell, the American Indians have a better claim to U.S. Soil than the Arabs have to the fictitious "Palestine" (an the American Indians have no valid claim to U.S. land; they were squatters).
The Palestinian issue is an East vs. West thing; and a left vs. right issue. On a pragmatic level, would we really support dismantling a strategic partner that is a valid nation-state, especially when said partner has the only democratic form of government in the entire area? They also have a respectable GDP. And do what with a dismantled nation? Give the land to a relatively small minority of displaced Arabs (who Arab state refuse to even take in and aid) and kick the vast majority out, the vast majority being civilized, peace loving Jews? Of course not.