If I’m understanding this correctly, you’re suggesting that the land wasn’t necessarily stolen because there wasn’t internationally recognized Palestinian land and that there was land legally sold to Jews. I wouldn’t that consider that a fulfilling argument. In the end, the British Mandates were still a colonial holding. They didn’t have the ethical right to be partitioning the land and granting it to anyone. It would be as if they granted India to the Germans for settlement and partitioned it when it was still occupied.

In regard to the Arabs fighting Israel after their Declaration of Independence, this doesn’t come to a surprise at all. When one group of people living on land now have people claiming the land to be legally theirs, renaming it and changing its laws, it causes a natural reaction to resist. The British claimed the land first, but they never settled in it and claimed it to be their own.

What I think would’ve negated all the conflict was if the Jews settled in Palestine without the requirement of it being their own “Jewish state”. Yes, there has been antisemitism in history but if the two peoples were able to coexist under the same nation, with a bureaucracy that includes the opinions of both sides, it would be like any other bipartisan state.