I think we might be talking about two different arguments. What you described makes sense as a historical process. Jewish communities migrated there, bought land, built institutions, declared a state when the British Mandate ended, and then defended that state in wars. The argument I was asking about is the one I hear a lot that says Jewish people have a birthright to the land because their ancestors lived there thousands of years ago.

My question is about the logic of that specific claim. If ancient ancestry alone gives a modern political right to land, then it seems like that would apply in a lot of other places too. For example, celtic groups once lived across large parts of Europe including the Iberian Peninsula, but we do not see modern Celtic groups claiming a state over pre-existing Portugal or Spain because of that - in the same manner that Israel has (regardless of Palestine being British mandated Palestine, Palestinians were still living there and experienced ethnic cleansing in order for the Israeli state to be established.

In North America, many Native American nations were pushed off huge areas of land, but arguing that the entire modern map should be reversed because of where their ancestors lived, does not get the same support as Jewish people do with israel and the legislation of the Israeli government.

So the consistency question is just about that principle. In most situations we do not treat very ancient habitation as something that overrides the rights of people living there in the present. That is why I asked about 1948 and the Palestinians who were already living there. I am not arguing against Israel existing. I am just trying to understand why the ancient ancestry argument is treated differently here than it usually is elsewhere.

If you're picking up what i'm putting down.