John, your questions are interesting and of course on-topic in a discussion starting with an article about Rahola and her opinions. Rahola is known for having asked similar (or even the same) questions so I fail to see how re-asking these questions can be considered off-topic.

Using these criteria, the questions would be on topic if they were being addressed to Pilar Rahola, or if Pilar Rahola's opinions about the questions or their answers were being discussed. However, John was asking us for the answers to the questions and he said that our answers would be instructive to us. So that would mean that each of us should decide whether or not they are on topic. And with the inclusion of the qualifier "my opinion is", my response was perfectly correct.

I still don't have time to do the research to fully answer the questions, but I will say that I see no purpose in asking such questions and saying that the answers would be instructive to the answerer other than to try to show the person being asked that they have a bias or prejudice against Jews. I could be wrong about this, but it doesn't (to me) seem to leave any possibility that some people might have different information about the history and dynamics of the region than what the questioner is working with.

And as I said before, I don't see any legitimacy in connecting the policies of the Israeli government (past and present) with regard to the Palestinians, and the wrongs committed against Palestinians (or against Jews) by the governments of other countries such as Jordan, unless the questioner believes in collective punishment (ie: they're all Arabs, so each is guilty of what is done by all the others). To me that is no different than saying that Jews in Europe should be punished for what the government of Israel does to the Palestinians. My opinion is that both of these premises are wrong.