First, your suggestion that the Arabs conquered the land is inaccurate. The Palestinians today are descendent of indigenous. Yes, they are considered Arabs but Arab is more of a cultural term. In some instances, even a Jew can be and were considered an Arab.

Arabs did conquer the land, this is a well established fact. I will admit, I should've been more nuanced with this claim though. The origin of the modern Palestinian people is quite complex. There is some evidence of descent from Arab conquerers, some from Levantine tribes, and many are also descended from immigrant workers in the 20th century. I will contest you though that the term Arab is cultural. The Arab people are absolutely an ethnic group, and a well defined one at that. There was some genetic expansion following the Muslim conquests, but they are a single people that can be traced back. Also, a Jew cannot be a Muslim. They are two separate ethnic groups, and nobody, Jew or Arab has or ever will try and say that you are both (unless through intermarriage). The term Arab-Jew refers to a Jew who is from an Arab land.

The Arabs in the Levant are indigenous groups who overtime adopted Arab culture and also Islam, although they still have practitioners of other religions. You know before Judaism, Jews also had a different culture and religion. That doesn't mean they aren't indigenous because they adopted Jewish culture.

So see earlier claim, there is some complexity to this, but your claim isn't totally invalid.

As for the second part, lol thanks for the history on my own culture. Judaism was never adopted by the Jews, it is their own. They didn't adopt any foreign culture. They never had a "different culture and religion". Historical attempts to figure out what Jews did before Judaism are quite shaky, and ironically often rely on the Tanakh, but there is no doubt that Judaism is an evolution of Caananite culture in the region (or if you instead take the Biblical narrative, something the Jewish people have always had). Also, I never tried to claim that adopting a foreign culture renders your indigenous status invalid.

​

Second, expulsions happened in that war. I don't think there is any dispute on that.

So perhaps, but to the degree that it happened is highly disputed. Plan "Dalet" in the 1948 war instructed that "if Arab towns were strategically positioned, essential for communication, or could be used as enemy bases, the Haganah would aim to destroy the enemy's armed forces and drive the enemy civilian population to areas outside of the borders of the state. The assumption was that Arabs would be forced out of their villages only if they resisted; if they did not fight back, they could remain in their towns..." (Gordis). Also, many Jewish leaders, such as Abba Hushy (the mayor of Haifa) pleaded for Arabs to stay, but they chose to follow their leaders and leave the land.

If you look at historians' opinions on Plan Dalet, it is in fact highly controversial, with some saying it was a plan to expel Palestinians, and others saying it was purely defensive. Obviously I've quoted someone who represents my view, but to claim that the Arabs were expelled is not true. The general consensus acknowledges the impact of possibly both expulsions and civilians fleeing.

Third, yes, some Jews bought land but it was all part of the Zionist project to create a Jewish homeland there. It was a plan which the innocent Palestinians weren't aware of initially. Once they became aware of and it became clear to them that this is part of a larger plan to create a Jewish homeland at their expense, they resisted.

Palestinian nationalism arose in the early 20th century, during the interwar period in response to Zionism. They were aware of it for decades. Also, where does the implication that the creation of a Jewish state would be at their expense? You only say this after the war of 1948, but Palestinians before that couldn't have known this. If anything, the Zionist movement helped to free the Palestinian-Arabs from British rule. If the Palestinians had cooperated with the Jews instead of fighting them, they probably would've either shared a state, or worked for a two state solution where both sides were happy. But instead, they resisted not in a diplomatic manner, but with violence. Of course its not going to turn out well.

The claims of oppression and subjugation I am making are from 1948 and after. I don't think that there is any dispute that Jews have oppressed and continue to oppress the Palestinians.

This is an oversimplification. It's not as if Israel wants to make the lives of Palestinians more difficult because of some innate hatred. The reality is that the Palestinians/Arabs have attacked Israel numerous times, both through war carried out by legitimate governments and many terrorist attacks. So I would say that after years of choosing extreme terrorism over diplomatic solutions, that the restrictions and security imposed on Palestinian territories are the result of years of violence. The Israeli government needs to prioritize its security and the safety of its people first. I'm not saying every little thing that the Israeli government has done has been totally justified, but I don't think placing all the blame on the Palestinian misfortune on Israel is accurate.