This is where we came in. And by the way, if somebody had [strike]given it to them[/strike] officially partitioned the land (FTFY) in 1937 -- as was considered --
ah, but I'm not allowed to use that argument, because it will make you feel guilty.
You didn't notice that, typically on promise of peace, IL has given back conquered territory larger than its current territory.
They gave back the entire Sinai peninsula. They gave back the Golan Heights. They left Lebanon. Now they've left Gaza.
They took those lands after being attacked from those lands. They gave it back -- often on the basis of world opinion.
That really fucks your narrative nine ways. Can you explain?
I was aware of the The Peel Commission, and, had the recommendation for partition not been rejected by the Zionist Jews, Palestinian Arabs, as well as, of course, the British Government (due to political changes at the time,) perhaps not so many, if any Jews, would've died, during WWII. (No more so than any other religious group. I may go as far as to say, that the holocaust would never've taken off... which not only would've drastically changed the history of the Jewish people, but may've drastically impacted/altered the war.)
However, take note that it was not only the Arabs, or the British, that caused the recommendation to fall into rejection, rather, the Zionist Jews, too.
"that the partition plan proposed by the Peel Commission is not to be accepted, [but wished] to carry on negotiations in order to clarify the exact substance of the British government's proposal for the foundation of a Jewish state in Palestine".
They wanted more.
Not only that, but the partition would've seen the relocation of some 200,000+ Arabs... and less than 2,000 Jews. Yet, they wanted more? Seems fair.
The reason the Woodhead Commission seemingly absolved Britain of any responsibility involved with Palestine, was due to the growing threat of Germany, and global conflict... The two peoples couldn't come to an agreement, the Jews wanted more, and the Arabs feared the Jews invading their territory, that was no fault of ours.
It's been a constant topic, since the founding of Israel, that the Jewish people are unhappy with the amount of land given to them. They've always tried to take more, whenever they have been able... Many hundreds of thousands of Palestinian civilians being forced from their land, turned into refugees due to Israeli expansion.
They give back land, when under pressure from the outside... Yes? Does that make them some kind of magnanimous people? They only give back what they took, when (somewhat) forced to do so, and that makes them... good people? No, sir, it does not. It's a common tactic of those who want to save face, within the world's watchful eye. They give back a little, and seem like glorious people... and we yet again ignore the atrocities committed.
Their land has successively grown, since the original partition (and even more, since the original recommendation for partition.) They lose pieces, here and there, through, as you say, international pressure... but their current geographical size far exceeds what was originally intended for them.
Care to explain?
(I apologise, but, I used to have several links, detailing this expansion, but I can't seem to locate them. I'm sure a man of your resources, and knowledge, must have some vague idea as to what I am referring to, though?)
UT, you are correct. It's obvious that the Chode hasn't been alive long enough to know about history, or is illiterate by his bigotry. There isn't more than a few fragments of truth in his entire rant against the Jews.
To quote something I said, earlier - I need not be a history student, to be a student of history.
Age is not a factor, when it comes to knowledge, interpretation of knowledge, or opinion.
As for your comment, suggesting I am bigoted in my views of Jewish people... you're quite wrong. I am disgruntled by the general defiance that Israel has shown to general war practice. I am disgusted by the holocaust guilt that causes us to turn a blind-eye to the atrocities committed. I am against the nation's comments, the nation's war, and the way the nation has treated the people of Palestine... I am not against the individual.
It is an opinion, both based on fact, and interpretation of fact. Everybody is welcome to one, and no one has the right to state that somebody is bigoted, for their opinion, without actual evidence of bigotry. You're welcome to your opinion that I am a bigot, but you're simply making a fool of yourself, through your choice of words.
Disgruntled, yes. Bigot, no. Perhaps you should check the actual definition of "bigotry," before you attempt to call somebody, especially me, a "bigot."
Thank you.