> Just say you don't believe Palestinians are people so didn't have any right to their homeland.

This kind of comment is not warranted. It is beneath the standards of Hacker News. It's putting words in my mouth which I vehemently disagree with. I will attempt to answer the rest of your comment civilly, but if you think that anyone who disagrees with you is evil, may I suggest your worldview is... incorrect.

> Moreover, there were not two people living there, there were the people who had been living there for thousands of years, who had been claimed by Britain (though not colonized). Claiming there were "two people" is revisionist BS.

Not sure why you think so. There had always been a minority of Jews in Palestine. By 1890, that was a 10% minority. By 1947, that was a 30% minority. What exactly is bullshit about saying this?

> That is, the government [the UN] sold half your home to a stranger, they agreed to this, you however unreasonably did not. What an asshole you are.

Or how about: the UN, the representative of all countries, which was given custody of the land by Britain, who had owned that land, recognized that there was an issue, both because two different peoples had legitimate aspirations for that land, and because many Jews who had managed to survive the Holocaust had nowhere to go. Given that Jews were by this point a 30% minority on that land, and given the many Jewish refugees, the UN decided to suggest a compromise.

And like I said, you can think this was a bad decision by the UN, it's certainly debatable, though I'm not sure what you think should've happened instead (either to the Jewish refugees of the Holocaust, or to the Jews living in Palestine). Was starting a war probably aimed at wiping out Jews really the correct alternative?

Either way, I don't think calling it "an invasion by Israel" makes any sense, since Israel didn't even exist.

Btw, serious question - what would you have suggested if you were the UN? What would you think should've been done in Palestine, and with the Jewish refugees?

> The jews, who just moved into a country, and seized a pile of land and property from the occupants of that country without the occupants consent "declare independence", starting a war.

It wasn't a "country" into which the Jews moved, it was part of the Ottoman empire in the early 20th century, then later British territory. Also, which land did Jews "steal" from the occupants of that country before 1947?

> When the fighting ends, the refugees returned to their homes to find that the Israeli government had now given their homes to yet more settlers. Opposing that is a criminal offense.
> Right, except 100% of Israel is Palestine, and the overwhelming proportion of the Palestinian population has been forced into ghettos

After the war, the Palestinian refugees were actually taken in by Jordan and Egypt. They didn't "return to their homes" and "get put in Ghettos". I'm honestly not sure what you're referring to. The Palestinians that stayed in Israel were kept under some kind of military rule, but eventually made equal citizens.

As for 100% of Israel is Palestine... ok. What do you think should happen to the 9 million Israeli citizens on that land currently (or 7 million Jews if you prefer to split it by ethnicity)?

> You're playing BS semantic games,

I'm really not, I honestly think you're just wrong on many actual facts, as I pointed to above. These are not at all semantic distinctions.

> I want to be absolutely clear, these BS arguments about Israel not be a colonial invader are no different from claiming that there was nothing illegal when the US government sold the land of native Americans to colonists, and allowed them to eradicate those inhabitants.

"Israel" being a colonial invader makes little sense, since Israel didn't exist before that. You may mean "Jews" were colonial invaders, which is more understandable, though still not really in line with a lot of facts, like that they moved in mostly legally, and that most Jews in Israel were actually refugees themselves. Not exactly scheming colonial invaders. Most Israeli Jews had and have nowhere else to go.

As for the legal status of what Americans did in the colonies - firstly, Israel never "eradicated" the Palestinians. Secondly, even assuming your history is 100% spot on - what now? Because of the past, should the Americans living in American now be.. what? Removed? And sent where? Similar questions to what you think should happen to Israelis now.

> pretending Palestinians have equal rights to Israelis (or lets be honest, Israeli jews - the discrimination against muslims and even arabic jews in Israel is well documented - is objectively false.

Let's leave aside "arabic Jews", which is not how most of that group chooses to identify for various historical reasons (and which make up the majority of Israelis, btw).

Yes, there is a lot of discrimination and racism against Israeli-Palestinians. Yes, things are not perfect, not by a long shot. But legally, Isareli-Palestinians have the same rights as any other Israeli citizen, including voting rights. (And including there being many Arab members of the Israeli parliament.)