> Doesn't defend what happened to Jewish people in Egypt and Lebanon, but certainly puts some context around it.

Which context? That zionism is right and it's great that Jews had a backup safe land to go?

> depopulation of Jews from Yemen and Iraq, that was Israeli policy and they managed it by themselves

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Iraq#Pe...

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_anti-Jewish_riots_in_Aden

Arabs started to bully Jews, and thus prove that the idea of a safe homeland for Jews is the right idea. For generations. What a smartasses.

You seem confused and didn't seem to read the message you are replying to. I think the main point should be repeated to avoid the reading issues problem:

>So we agree that the first move in this conflict was a 20th century European nationalist group setting up a new state by force in the middle of an inhabited nation? With the blessing of the colonial power in charge.

I didn't want to spread the answer too much, bit if you're asking.

> of an inhabited nation

https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/nation

> a tribe of Native Americans or a group of Native American tribes that share the same history, traditions, or language

They're not native americans.

> a large area of land that is controlled by its _own_ government

Mandatory Palestine was controlled by British.

So it was not an inhabited nation, I guess.

It had someone living there, those someone's weren't asked and their land handed over to someone else. If we see it from the perspective of it having being a British colonial project, then it's even worse having gone from one colonial master to another without asking the natives.

> and their land handed over to someone else

Well, they were offered a partition plan, and instead of further negotiations chose to start a war.

Multiple wars, in fact, and managed to fail all of them.