That's where your misconception is coming from. Prior to WW2, ~1/3 of the population of the region was Jewish. It is true that there was immigration of Jews, but it is also true that there was immigration of Arabs and Egyptians. Astonishingly few of the people there in 1947 can claim to be much more than second generation. You think there were no Jews in Israel at some point, that it was all the people who now call themselves Palestinians.
No I don't think that at all.
The situation is analogous to the USA. There are a bunch of Mexicans living there and have been ever since the USA conquered the whole New Mexico area. That doesn't mean they get to declare a part of the USA to be their own and create their own country.
That at some point the Jews left and then came back, but it isn't true.
No again.
At some point, a few centuries ago, the Jewish people were conquered and the Arabs took over the place. That's unfortunate but it's also ancient history. Yes, some Jews remained. Again, analogous to the Brits coming to the USA and taking over from the Native Americans. Yes some of them are left in the USA. The solution today is not for the Native Americans to grab a patch of land and declare it their own country and then to start expanding that area whenever they feel like it.
It is true that after the 1947 civil war which created the modern state of Israel, lots of Jewish people emigrated there, with another huge group arriving after the relaxed travel restrictions from the soviet union, which was 1989 ish or something, not going to look it up right now, but it absolutely was a civil war. It was a particularly brutal civil war, because unlike the U.S. civil war, where there were different regions separated by distance that mobilized and clashed, this was literal neighbors in conflict, your grocer might be the one to set your house on fire that night, sort of fight. And the Israeli's did not choose to instigate that civil war.
Civil war -
"a war between citizens of the same country"
So no, not a civil war as the Jewish people in the region were not citizens of the same country as the Palestinians. As you have mentioned previously, they were stateless and happened to be living in a part of another country.
I don't believe that might makes right but I also don't believe that might makes wrong.
So it's not right or wrong to take over part of another nation state and decide it is now yours just because you have the military to do so. Gotcha.
I guess it mostly depends on which side you're on. I'm betting if the Palestinians had the military might to win the conflict in a decisive and final way you would have no problem with that?
The only thing the Israeli's could have done differently is roll over and die. There is no reason at all to assume that even if they gave up, surrendered to the Palestinians, turned over control to Arabs, that they would be allowed to live in peace. All evidence in historical fact, modern history, and current rhetoric from the Palestinians makes clear what Israeli's can expect, and it is entirely rational for them to defend themselves.
I agree there is no evidence to suggest they would be left alone to live in peace if they turned over control to the Palestinians. I'll even agree that if they all up and left and created a new Israel in, say, the USA, the fundamentalist Muslim minority would still probably want to kill them. Of course setting up in the USA isn't going to happen because the USA isn't partial to having parts of its territory annexed and given away and has the military might to ensure that doesn't happen whereas the Palestinians didn't.
Of course that has nothing to do with what started the present conflict, which was the point I was discussing.
In any case, I genuinely believe it just comes from you being where I was a few years ago, largely ignorant of the history as you've admitted to,
I never admitted to being "largely ignorant". I do admit you've pointed out a couple of minor points I didn't know. The rest is a matter of opinion that we differ on, not indisputable historical facts that I am ignorant of.
and believing that going back farther than the creation of the modern state isn't necessary for a proper analysis because "how far back do you go."
Let me be clear. I do understand that one needs to go back further than the creation of the modern state of Israel to understand the historical hostility between Arabs and Jews. That historical enmity of course plays a part in the modern conflict.
What I don't agree with is that you can unilaterally decide on a point of origin that suits your argument and claim that is undeniably the beginning of the current conflict. If you want to go back before the creation of the modern state of Israel then go back and look at it all.
There's a thousand year + gap between what happened in antiquity and restarting the violence, and no rational person accepts that a grudge like that is justification for a modern conflict. Forget about what your particular side is arguing, go look at each individual event, plot them on a timeline, be doubtful, you'll get here.
Your attitude of smug superiority and condescending implication that I will "get there" if only I educate myself seems a lot like the "smug liberalism" that so many in this thread (yourself included I think though I couldn't be bothered going back through your posts to be certain about) have railed against. I guess it's ok to be a smug conservative though.
Thanks for arguing with me, I appreciate the opportunity.
Except for the above mentioned attitude it's been interesting.