There are tons of facts disputed in that region’s history but none of the ones I listed. I listed the ones I did in response to your gross oversimplification and ahistorical perspective which, not for nothing, sounds a lot like Hamas and SJP pamphlets.

If you want to accuse me of fighting memes with memes I can maybe agree with that, but only because I didn’t know a more effective way to counter the many statements you made that simply don’t hold up to historical scrutiny.

Let’s put that aside because all of this is beside the point I was even trying to make and not relevant to the actual question I asked you which is:

Why is this issue such a hot button for people who aren’t personally involved, and why only then when there are Jews involved?

Despite writing paragraph after paragraph, you’ve made no attempt to answer or even acknowledge that question.

And, of course I believe Palestinians have a right to self determination, they deserve to be at the table when decisions are being made about the region where they reside, and no one deserves to be a victim of a war just because of where they’re born.

Where we disagree is the idea that “Palestinians” had a sovereign nation that Israel displaced in 1948.

Which Arabs did you mean? The Arabs in Gaza? The Bedouin? Druze? The mufti in Jerusalem who joined the Nazis? The rich Arab foreign interests who actually owned most of the land in Palestine after the Ottoman Empire fell? The Hashemites? Any of the small villages of fellaheen migrants that didn’t own land or work meaningfully with each other?

The Arab Congress wasn’t exactly known for harmony and cooperation either. They didn’t like each other all that much more than they liked the Jews, rather like the different sects of Israeli Jews aren’t a monolithic bloc today.

So, in the absence of any kind of central leadership or organization the place was ripe for colonialism following WW1.

If you don’t believe me, just tell me what Arab group or individual in 1917 was in charge of Palestine.

Was it a king? President? There was an Arab Congress in the 20’s, sort of, but they weren’t in a position to pass or enforce laws, nor had they been elected.

There weren’t courts, no police, no army, and it was a decentralized feudal society with a fair amount of violence between settlements and on travelers regardless of their ethnic or religious affiliation.

So, while that doesn’t excuse the British and their bigoted, self serving rape of every foreign land they colonized, it’s also materially different than what they did in places like India or America.

It also doesn’t invalidate the claims of Jews who had purchased land, answered a public call to immigrate, and until things started getting really nasty in the 30’s hadn’t perpetrated the kind of brutal violence they were routinely victim to.

And yes, all of these statements can (and have) had entire books written about them because none of them are that simple. I’m not a person educated on this topic solely via social media memes, nor will I hand wave things like spreading typhoid or Deir Yassin the way you seem to want to do about facts I bring up you don’t like.

I’m saying that it’s simply dishonest to characterize the conflict as solely about “Arabs being displaced” or “They want their country back.” There was land and they owned or lived on much of it, sure, but it wasn’t a country, they weren’t a unified people, nor was all the land they claim ever actually theirs.

They were also very, very brutal violent not just towards Jews but also Christians, Druze, and each other. I’ll maybe excuse being violent towards the British.

That was true long before Zionism even existed, and claiming it’s a response to Jewish colonialism is demonstrably false, especially when you also saw that violence in other Arab states going back as far as anyone can remember.

What isn’t dishonest is to say that group has refused to work with or compromise with any other group since before the Ottomans fell, and it’s a culture prone to violence as evidenced throughout the entire Middle East and also the European countries where they have any significant presence.

That’s not a statement on race as Christians behave identically when their fundamentalists are in charge, as do Jews. If you want me to condemn Bibi and Likud here I’m happy to as part of this statement.

If you want me to say the Irgun should have been prosecuted for the war crimes and terrorism they committed instead of being integrated into the IDF I’m happy to say that too.

So yes, we are agreed that the best scenario is everyone there living side by side peacefully.

Where we disagree is the framing of the conflict or the notion that the Jews didn’t deserve consideration in the formation of a state, particularly as they had vastly increased the arable and livable land in the region.

But, again: My actual question is why this issue inspires such passion in so many uninvolved and often uneducated people, and then only when it involves Jews, and why so many worse global issues barely get mentioned. I’d love to hear your thoughts on that.