I was trying to explain to Janh that the website she was posting from was racist. But she persisted in saying that it's historical references must be accurate because one particular sentence mirrored a link I had posted from the Guardian. She seemed very persistent although I had already read the offensive texts on its homepage.
Janh - I think you were trying to prove this:
It is true that the Palestinian Arabs rejected a division of their homeland put forward by the UN in 1947. But their decision in NOT wishing to have their homeland divided seems entirely logical to many historians and political commentators. Britain and the other colonial powers who had very nicely divided up the ME among themselves (see the secretly signed Sykes-Picot Agreement) had PROMISED the Arabs independence after the end of WWI in return for the Arabs fighting on the Allied side. That promise was broken again and again. Throughout 1930's Britain allowed massive Jewish immigration into Palestine. Although one can sympathise with the plight of the Jews in Europe at that time, to the Arabs it was yet more evidence of British duplicity and cunning.
It is always worth putting things into historical perspective just so that one can get the full picture.
The Arabs missed many other subsequent opportunities in the 1950's, 1960's and 1970's to share Palestine with the Jews. The main culprit for this intransigence was Arab nationalism as promoted by Gamal Abdul Nasser. As always nationalism has got in the way of logic !
Ironically, despite Egyptian-Arab nationalism, Egypt remains the only Arab nation to have "recognised" the exsitance of Israel (1978 Camp David Treaty signed between Egypt and Israel). Arab "nationalists" then decided to assasinate Sadat for making peace with Israel.
Israeli prime minsters have also been assassinated by Jewish fanatics for wishing to make peace with the Arabs.
So the debate to me remains one of fanatical nationalism on both sides - NOT about Jew versus Muslim.