Still waiting for a direct answer......

Submitted by Sword of Islam & The Babies of Beslan (United Kingdom), Feb 14, 2007 at 15:15

I am pleased to see that you want to try and start being honest with yourself at last, but to follow up such an admirable statement of intent with yet more subterfuge suggests that your self-delusion is too ingrained for you to conquer...

!You are not even able (or perhaps not willing) to answer such a simple question like how can you be able to know with certainty how much of Palestine would the Jews have "without the British". "

Which is why the rest of us rely on historical fact rather than hypothesis. There is a simple test that can be applied - Did the Jews have more land and/or a larger population prior to the British capture of the region than they did after the British left? Or was it more? It is called the law of 'cause and effect'. Most informed people would opt for the latter.

I'm not interested in what might have happened; that is strictly your area of expertise. I am interested in what did happen.

It is a simple test. Given the comparatively small size of the Jewish population during the hundreds of years prior to the events described it is incumbent upon you to attribute the sudden mass influx of Jewish settlers to Palestine that just happened to coincide with it's capture from the Ottomans, if the catalyst for this event cannot be ascribed to the chain of events that I have repeatedly iterated.

Or do you imagine that there was some kind of secret Jewish army that was going to take down the Turks and that they were saved the trouble by the outbreak of WWI?

The only person dwelling on 'what ifs' is you. It is quite incredible that you are hiding behind such absurd falsehoods to avoid answering a specific question.

Once again,

"You have previously conceded, after much resistance, that the British did, in fact, take Palestine from the Turks during World War I. As anybody with a basic knowledge of history can tell you, this led to the Balfour Declaration in 1917 which in turn led to League of Nations mandate for Palestine, which in turn led to mass immigration of Jews to Palestine which in turn led to the eventual forming of the state of Israel. Given that the British capture of Palestine was the first link in this chain is therefore as clear as the nose on your face that 'Without the British, the Jews would have 0% of Palestine."

Which part of the above statement is wrong. Simple question. Why not try ANSWERING it?...

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".