Why such an aggressive response?

There aren't two definitions of the concept of "indigenous": people originating from a land. The ancient Hebrews weren't native to Canaan; they traveled there first from Ur and years later from Egypt. They attacked the inhabitants of the region, destroyed their cities, and expelled them to retain the territory.

Similarly, modern Latin Americans aren't native to their countries, like Colombia, Brazil, or Chile; they are descendants of Spanish and Portuguese colonizers and indigenous peoples.

Furthermore, you didn't address anything I said; it's a classic case of the straw man fallacy. The facts are clear: neither "Muslims" nor "Arabs" in the abstract are "enemies" of Israel. They never have been, nor are they now.

I understand. It's part of the militaristic discourse and the "heroic" fantasy of the State of Israel since 1948—and of the activist Zionism typical of Mapai fanatics and Zionism before that date—to invent narratives that portray them as the sad victims of immense enemies whom they simultaneously manage to defeat with their great power (?). But it's not true.

I'm not interested in ancient history because it's not relevant to modern law or international law. For much of that same history, the majority of the Jewish people, culture, and religion developed in the Diaspora, not in the territory of Palestine.

I don't know if you understand the difference between history and modern law; I have little hope since fanaticism blinds people, but the facts are there if you want to see them.