booman's observation reminds me of one of my pet peeves: the tendency to portray the israeli-palestinian struggle as some kind of ancient conflict. it's a surprisingly common thing to see.
there are several potential quibbles with booman's characterization. there are several difference points that can be used to date the beginning of the conflict. you could use 1947 or 1948 as booman did. or you can go back to the arab revolt in the 1930s, or the palestine riots of 1920, or to the beginning of the british mandate, or to the balfour declaration, or maybe even to the publication of der judenstaat. but that only gets you as far back as 1896.
that's still far far away from being the product of the ancient world. i'm not sure where the common notion that the conflict is much older comes from. i think it's because the I/P conflict takes place in the same place as the bible. because the setting is the same everyone assumes it must somehow relate to those ancient tales and not the twentieth century real estate dispute. that it is characterizing it as a conflict so old that it dates back to the dawn of recorded history makes it seem more complicated and less solvable than it is.
don't get me wrong, it's already a pretty complicated and difficult issue. all i'm saying is there's no need to warp history make it worse.
