I appreciate the history of this is complicated. I'll take a look at the book you recommended. However, let's not forget that the 1948 Arab-Israeli war occurred because Israel's neighbours immediately declared war rather than recognise the UN mandate to create the state of Israel. The creation of refugee camps in the north and so on (which is presumably what you refer to with the frankly rather loaded term "ethnic cleansing") wasn't great, I agree, but it happened in response to that declaration of war, not in a vacuum. Of course, Israel has also defended itself and taken territory in subsequent wars (including most significantly in the Six Day war), before agreeing to give land for peace at the 1993 Oslo Accords. It didn't get peace. It got intifadas, terrorism, and all sorts of aggravation. Again and again, Israeli olive branches are met with guns and Islamic extremist genocidal threats. Should they just kowtow to this? Of course not. They do what any other nation would do and defend themselves. How they go about it is the point at issue in much of what Kieran was getting at here. My point was that the gun needs to be taken out of politics and a two-state solution found, with no further bloodshed. Easier said than done, but I absolutely and emphatically stand by the right of the state of Israel to both exist and defend itself (even if I take issue with how it goes about the latter, especially of late).

Also, with reference to your point about the "Jewish state", I'd just like to point out that there are about 2.4 million Israeli Arabs in Israel (about 21 percent of the population), all with full rights as citizens of Israel (including the peaceful Druze population, who were recently targeted by Hezbollah with tragic consequences). It is absolutely not true that Israel is an "apartheid" state, as many nonsensically claim. It merely doesn't tolerate Hamas and other such nutters, and quite rightly so.