Interesting. I was unaware of those details about a Dhimmi contract.
Even though I'm disposed to accept Israel's case that they likely are the oldest historical "owners" of the territory, my take on the matter has changed. There's more to it than just "who got there first". For one thing, even completely fair "ownership" changes easily and often, and the Holy Lands more often than most. It takes me a minute to come up with an empire that ~didn't~ at one time or another have a reasonably enforceable title to the place.
But life and time and tide is not necessarily about "fair". Sometimes it is about right and wrong, and there is a difference.
Fifty to maybe a hundred years ago, the so-called "Palestinian" cause might have had an articulable case and reasonable people might have given a sympathetic ear. Maybe even me.
But that's all gone now. A side that professes and countenances the intentional targeting of innocents-- that straps explosives to a child, and sends that child into a busy pizza parlor for the express purpose of shredding the children of the other side-- that side ~must~ lose whatever argument they make.
It is morally imperative that certain methods and intents are so thoroughly barbaric that they must not ever be granted success, nomatter the origin of their claim. They've become by their own profession no more than parasites on the human condition. They must now lose-- and lose utterly.
My .02 :-)
If I'm not mistaken, and JEB, correct me if I'm wrong, when the UN created Israel, it also offered the Palestians a state, but the Arabs were SO against a homeland for the Jews that they rejected a homeland for the Palestinians, too.
So in order to try to screw the Jews, they screwed the Palestinians as well, and have continued to do so since then. The Arab nations scared the poor Palestinians into thinking they'd all be murdered in their beds by the evil Jews, so they fled their homes. Unfortunately, those same Arabs refused to take them into their countries, confining them to the Gaza, and built refugee camps for them, leaving them in squalor in order to raise a generation of terrorists bent on Israel's destruction.
The land has been under many empires, of course, the British being the last. But the British, who only used the Zionists to subvert Sykes Picot, made it clear through their policies and their official communications that the British Mandate was a mistake and the land should belong to the Arabs and the Jews submit to the Arabs.
I completely support the Israelis.
First and foremost on the grounds that they have been a people who have never been protected. They have been oppressed and murdered at will. If the West will not protect them, they have every right to protect themselves. (Of course, they are not allowed to that either thanks to the West)
Last, I support them on your very well articulated grounds that the Palestinians, because of their use of terror, must not only lose, but must be beaten militarily (since the Arabs only understand strength). Ben Gurion was criticized for use of overwhelming force against Arab raids, he replied that the Arabs must understand there is a harsh price to be paid for the taking of Jewish life. I agree, not only for Israel, but for our sakes.
Even though I understand why the coalition is fighting in the limited manner under the harsh restrictions imposed upon itself in Iraq, I disagree. Yes, we should be in Iraq, but the war should be as total as it was against the Germans and the Japanese.