Again, it seems like you don't actually know history here and are just parroting something others have told you.

I'm also confused why you're noting correctly how terrible things were for the Jews in Europe, while simultaneously accusing them of being colonizers and not refugees fleeing persecution.

Other than wealthy donors willing to finance the flight of Jews fleeing ethnic cleansing and genocide, there was no Jewish power even capable of colonialism prior to 1948.

I don't have anything good to say about colonialism, but I also don't confuse what the British did in places like India and North America for what happened in Palestine.

First: The British didn't "Mandate" Palestine. The League of Nations did that for regions that were essentially ungoverned after World War 1, and there were many.

Palestine wasn't part of any sovereign state after the Ottomans fell and prior to the Mandate. The British respected private land ownership (though the documentation was a mess as the Arabs didn't actually implement the Ottoman title system to get out of paying taxes), but there was no king or president, no government, courts, laws, army, representative body, or anything else an actual nation would have. It was 100% not an Arab sovereign state.

The goal of the Mandate System was to set up the mandated regions for self governance. There were specific restrictions on what the Mandatory power could do.

Now... The British and other European powers were absolute bastards during this period, but they did indeed set up self governing countries including Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Tanzania, Cameroon, and others.

Again: It is entirely accurate to say that in 1919 before the British Mandate that no sovereign government had control of Palestine. That is why the British Mandate was put in place.

Even prior to the formal end of their empire, the Ottomans had been in decline for centuries and the region that is now Palestine (but was actually part of Syria at the time) ran like the Wild West.

When the Young Turk revolution happened any land a European power wanted, they took. No one particularly wanted Palestine so it stayed under nominal Ottoman control until about ten years later after WW1, but in practice that meant that they just paid taxes to Istanbul when the collectors came and each town and settlement did their own thing in their own way.

During WW1 the Arab Revolt overthrew the Ottomans in the Middle East. A case can (and has) been made that the British had promised the Arabs a single state comprising all the Arab countries in the Middle East today, but the British had promised all kinds of things to all different people including other colonial powers, and the Jews to whom they'd promised a state as well.

Given that there were large populations of Arabs and Jews in Palestine, partitioning the land made sense. Neither side could claim ownership of the entire region, and much of it wasn't even populated. The issue has never been that there isn't enough space there for everyone.

That's why the British tried a partition plan in 1937. Jews said yes, Arabs said "Death to the Jews."

Then the UN tried a partition plan again in 1948. Again the Jews said yes, and the Arabs said "Death to the Jews."

You talk about the "Ethnic Cleansing" in places like Haifa like it wasn't a declared war and the Arabs there were just sitting around minding their own business. That's not at all what happened. There's historical disagreement about which side did what and when, but the idea that the Arabs were just innocent victims isn't supported by anyone but Palestinian Propagandists.

I'm not racist towards Arabs, but I do note that there is a culture among Arab Muslims that seems awfully prone to violence, as they fight pretty much constantly not only with Israel and other Western Powers, but also among each other.

Western culture has a taboo against violence that is simply not shared in Islamic culture. That's not a racist statement, it's a pretty well documented fact, and one Western Liberals don't seem to want to acknowledge. Other differences include a deep seated cultural misogyny, bigotry towards LGBTQ, and religious persecution for anyone who doesn't follow Sharia Law.

Again... this isn't racist to note any more than it's antisemitic to criticize the Israeli government's policy towards settlers, which I absolutely do.

I'm just pointing out that you won't find Jews in military conflict with anyone outside of the Arabs. Conversely, you'll find Arabs at war all over the world, including many civil wars among themselves. This seems like a pretty relevant fact to consider when trying to pass moral judgment on Israelis for their conduct in this conflict.

Re Haifa: Haifa is not on "The Sand Dunes North of Jaffa." It's 100 km up the coast and there has been a city there since before the Roman Empire. Tel Aviv was not built on top of it, and Haifa is a very populated metropolis today separate and distinct from Tel Aviv.

Tulkarm is in the West Bank and neither on the coast nor North of Jaffa. It is also not part of Tel Aviv and many kilometers away.

The space that is now Tel Aviv was indeed empty sand dunes. You can google it, there are pictures and everything. This is a really silly argument to make and it detracts from other points you're trying to make.

There's plenty to criticize the Palestinian Jews and Israelis for in terms of their conduct in the 1930's and 1940's, but you've got your facts (and geography) very backwards and I'm not going to make your arguments for you.

If you want to continue this conversation you've gotta do a lot more homework and maybe question the "Facts" you've been fed, as repeating them in this conversation isn't doing anything but making you look foolish.