It seems you didn't read my posting properly, despite citing it. I didn't question the right to self-determination. However, this right in itself doesn't imply where and on how large an area it should actually take place. Obviously it makes sense to do it where the people live at the point of time at which they claim their right. There have been Jews in Palestina even before their state was declared fair enough. The situation of the Jews is, as you correctly state, historically unique, also fair enough, I respect that. What follows from it is however far from clear. The first number I could find about the percentage of Jews in Israel in 1947 (from the Jewish Virtual Library!) was 32%. So immediately before the founding of the state they were still a minority. They became a majority by attracting settlers and driving out the Palestinians (who partly have left out of fear on their own if you want to make the case that many of them were not actively "driven out"; not that that changes a lot). I don't see how your 2000 years old story gives your rights a precedence over the majority of Arabs who lived there just before the Israelis created their state. I am willing to say, though, that it gives you something, at least something that is worth to be considered. I have a huge respect for Jewish history. The "Arab majority right" of 1947, say, is not absolute either. These things need to be negotiated and weighted, taking into account everything that is relevant, and that's a lot. It's really difficult, I said this before. Nobody can take events that happened long ago as indicators for who has any "objectively true" right on the lands. Such a thing does not exist. Things are negotiated, violently or non-violently, and, to be realistic, with interference from outside powers who will be affected whatever the outcome. Better people listen constructively to each other. Talking down on everyone who disagrees with you is not helping your case.