The land wasn’t the Brits to give away, so that’s already a non-starter. If the Brits want a Jewish homeland, they should give them a strip of land in England. Why didn’t they? This argument hinges on the idea that colonial conquest is valid and justified.

There was absolutely a country called Palestine prior to colonization, and even if there wasn’t a formal, unified state prior to colonization (which there was), it does not justify expelling the native population in successive campaigns of ethnic cleansing. This argument is trotted out constantly because the implication is that indigenous peoples are incapable of self-governance and have no sociopolitical organization. It’s the political version of terra nullius.

Palestinians have every right to refuse the two-state solution because any compromise along those lines is a theft of Palestinian land by colonial forces, and each time it has been offered, Palestinians’ right to their land and self-determination has been progressively eroded. If I steal your house, you should not be forced to give me half, especially if they take the living room, the kitchen, the driveway, and the bedroom, leaving you with the attic, in order to “resolve conflict.”

You say you don’t know enough about history to debunk his claims, but you don’t need to know any history to do so. Note that I at no point invoked any historical knowledge of Palestine to make my argument. The reason I didn’t need to do so is that his assertions hinge on white supremacy and other forms of fallacious thought, which can be refuted by a total ignoramus just by hitting their weak points.

You also don’t need to argue with these genocidal freaks. Spare yourself the pain and difficulty of exposing yourself to hate speech.