Am I wrong to be a little irritated by the fact that your previous wording was that my "grasp on the rest of the history is poor", but when asked to explain things, you seem to think that I simply lacked nuance? Because it seems to me in that case that your initial response saying that my grasp was poor was also lacking nuance.
I'm not a middle east expert, or even an enthusiast. I would even flatly state that my grasp of the history in the region is poor, and that my knowledge on the subject lacks nuance... However, before I made the comment, I did a bit of research, for example, reading the Wikipedia article on Israel and its history, and I did leave quite a bit of nuance out intentionally, for example, completely ignoring the fact that Palestine was governed by British Mandate at the time. But I don't think I misrepresented the facts in some fundamental way. It's just good to keep things short, punchy, and factual online.
To be clear, I have read your entire comment, and it is very interesting. It adds a lot of nuance. I didn't expect you to put so much effort into your comment, and I appreciate the effort.