The problem is two fold here:
#1 historical context isn't the most important thing, it's the ONLY thing. The Palestinians petitioned to take over from the Brits. It was denied. Why? Because there is no time in recorded history that the Palestinians had self rule there. Ever. The Jews were chosen because they do have a time in history where they had self governance of the region, and had sympathy from the genocide inflicted on them during WW2.
#2 you are trying deflect away from the fact that the Palestinians started the violence with Israel. They put Israel on the defensive by immediately attacking. They could have decided to wait and see if their lives would change under Jewish rule after British rule. But they couldn't wait forviolence. No one had been dislodged from their ancestral home, not a single Palestinian had been harmed from the time the Brit's withdrew and when the Palestinians swelled the ranks of the Egyptian and Syrian armies and attacked. Not one. Of they had waited, the world would have a very different view of them if the same things were happening now. Sadly, because of the Palestinians actions, we'll never know what Israel would look like today if there had never been such violence.
There are 2 million Israeli Arabs. They own businesses, are doctors, lawyers, restaurant owners, etc. there are fully functioning members of Israeli society. That is what the Palestinians could have had ... . But instead THEY chose violence.
You can talk about the Israelis ham fisted RESPONSE, but it is a response to the Palestinian violence. Israelis are fighting for their lives. Palestinians are fighting for their butt hurt feelings of not being chosen to take over instead of the Jews.
No. They hate when democrats vote. Sure they would prefer direct installation of presidents forever, but as long as only the right people vote it's ... ... . Okay.