>>17839943
>Which simply is not how reality works
That is literally how every modern nation works, you inbred. Can you show me one country in which you would be permitted to create your own, independent nation within its borders, only provided that this particular small slice of land is your legal property? Of course, the whole situation is muddied by that it wasn't on paper "their land", since they had lived under foreign occupation for the last many hundreds of years, but viewed through a modern lens, Palestine absolutely is their land

>of which 70% belonged to the state AKA the British
Yes. And in every, single other example in the history of modern era decolonisation processes, the colonial power gradually grants authority and self-determination to the ancestral population of whatever land the colonial power was squatting on. Not to a foreign people with no real relation to the land, whose land purchases only amount to 7% of that land lmao
Also, I already told you that we can pretend your narrative isn't 70 IQ. In this magical world where, despite being tethered to nothing tangible, "legal ownership" as it is written on paper and sheeet trumps everything, by what magical calculation would a people whose legal ownership amounts to just 7% of the actual, cultivated land, be allotted 50% of the total area by the British authorities?

>reality but on feelings and dreams that it’s the inherent property of the Palestinian volk because they wuz Canaanites or some such hokum
Your argument can literally be reduced to that a people who has been living in an area for at least the last five thousand years make for a less legitimate nation than one created by foreign investors of mostly Italian descent LARPing as ancient Israelites. If you don't want to be called a pajeet, don't say pajeet shit

>Yup, it’s a Paki.
Come on lol. Now post your little brown, mongrel hand or gracefully concede, after which I'll then apologize for my tone and thank you for owning it