What are you talking about? About 20% of Israel population are Arabs. Only 7% of them self-identify as "Palestinians". Regardless of that, they all enjoy same rights as every other citizen. Which is more rights for the vast majority of them than in any surrounding Arab country. Imagine if you declared "US is a single-race country", totally ignoring existence of non-white people in the US. I think some might have been upset at such declaration, and even more would consider a person proclaiming such thing to be extremely ignorant.

True, but I think that's more due to the age of the state than the geographic location. Israel is very young and was founded on land that already had a lot of people living there. Now they're mostly gone and Israel is declaring that it exists solely for the non-native inhabitants. Let's translate that into American terms so it's more understandable.

What if the entire history of US settlement and expansion, from 1600s to present, was compressed to 70 years, then our government declared that it existed solely for white people regardless of Democracy and laid siege to all remaining Indian reservations?

Yet the same major news organizations and politicians that supposedly stand against racism cannot find any backbone to stand up for their principles when it comes to Israel. We were supposed to be better than this.

Many of the people already living there were Jews. Many - about half IIRC - of the people who came there afterwards were refugees from surrounding Arab countries. What better demonstration could there have been that the Jewish people need a safe haven? Well, I can think of a better demonstration, because we saw it two weeks ago.

Nobody is (was?) objecting that the Jewish people needed a safe haven or a land of their own; the objection is that they took / colonised the Palestinian land, claimed nobody lived there anyway, and had the early UN and its member-states validate their claim, then committed acts of war and crimes against civilians to claim more of the land than the UN decided they should have.

A good introduction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGVgjS98OsU

> Many - about half IIRC - of the people who came there afterwards were refugees from surrounding Arab countries.

It's true that many Jews lived in harmony with Arab nations prior to the founding of Israel. Founding Israel is what made those relations go sour. That literally was where this whole conflict started for the aboriginal peoples of the Middle East.

> Well, I can think of a better demonstration, because we saw it two weeks ago.

The attacks wouldn't have happened if the founders of Israel (not all of whom were Jews, looking at you Britain) hadn't decided to interpret an ancient holy book in a genocidal way.

The Palestinians lived there. Israel has been in the process of kicking them out ever since its founding. It doesn't get to blame the victim here. Yes, I know about the holocaust etc. etc. but one genocide doesn't warrant another.

> The attacks wouldn't have happened if the founders of Israel (not all of whom were Jews, looking at you Britain) hadn't decided to interpret an ancient holy book in a genocidal way. > The Palestinians lived there. Israel has been in the process of kicking them out ever since its founding.

You seem to interpret the history in really one way here...

and none of those were funded by Britain in 1948 on foreign soil

That the West supports Israel has very deep, historical reasons. And I agree, jews (as an ethnicity / people) deserve and need an own state. Especially after the holocaust. The implementation could have been handled so much better, because the Palestinians also deserve a home. And having Israel and Palestinians sharing a home nation is no futher away than it was in decades. No easy solutions.