Provocative & thought-provoking. But it does seem biased: e.g. the nascent Israeli state did seize Palestinian lands post-independence, but the Arab invasions provided the pretext. Had they not used force would Israel have had the opportunity to go from 55% (I also read 62%) of partition to 77%?

Bear in mind I don't blame the Palestinians for declining the UN partition. Why should they accept the loss of any of the land they believed was all theirs?

British atrocities against Arabs pre-independence? This is new to me. I know mandatory authorities executed Jews caught carrying firearms, & imprisoned others simply for possessing ammunition. They halted refugees trying to enter Palestine, some of whom had spent years post-war in DP camps. Labor continued to enforce the White Paper.

Again, understandable, I suppose given that the western powers' interest lay in reliable supplies of petroleum & nations can't afford to put sentiment over strategic interests.

Unfortunately I agree that after the initial shock of Hamas brutality, much of the world's sympathy has been redirected to the people of Gaza & the West Bank. I don't see what an invasion of Gaza will accomplish, nor the continued bombing. Yet it's one thing to call for a ceasefire, quite another to demand Israel sit down with Hamas.