I disagree with this timeline (the Jews got there in the first place with the precise, declared intent of colonising somebody else's land. That's the whole point of Zionism).

But more in general, there's no point in following a tit-for-tat that goes back 80 years or more with the intent of finding "who was the first". Each event further down the chain completely reverses the assessment, and you can't base any solid reasoning on such grounds. What you have to look at is the big picture: who is occupying someone else's territory? Who is oppressing the other with overwhelming force? Which side keeps taking and which keeps losing?

> the Jews got there in the first place with the precise, declared intent of colonising somebody else's land. That's the whole point of Zionism

Yes, but they were doing it by legally purchasing land, not through violent displacement. Arabs then rioted against Jewish communities, and that started the cycle of violence.

And note how this push for Zionism coincides with a global expansion of antisemitism after WWI. The only place Jews could find reliable support was among their people and protected by the British who were bound to uphold the Barfour declaration.

> What you have to look at is the big picture: who is occupying someone else's territory?

But if you ignore the history, you can't actually determine whose territory it is can you? Jews purchased land from Arabs, Arabs repeatedly started conflicts with them and Jews repeatedly beat them back. Losers in a conflict lose territory, and the armistice following Israel's founding drew the expanded lines.

As for the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank today, I agree it's problematic, but what exactly Israel supposed to do when they keep getting attacked? They were attacked after the armistice with Jordan and Egypt, so once again, they didn't start anything.

If Mexico repeatedly attacked the US, they would do the same thing. Hamas continues to have over 70% support among Gazans, even now, and Hamas murders anyone who speaks against them.

> but they were doing it by legally purchasing land

This is false- the land they purchased was only 12% of what they claimed at the moment of independence. Besides, privately buying land doesn't give you any right to declare sovereignty over it- try that in your country.

> The only place Jews could find reliable support was among their people

Sucks for them, but absolutely can't be used to justify a crime against a third party- the Palestinians.

> Jews purchased land from Arabs, Arabs repeatedly started conflicts with them and Jews repeatedly beat them back

This is entirely false and even a cursory reading of actual history (not the passively repeated Zionist propaganda points that you're exposing here) would change your mind.

> As for the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank today, I agree it's problematic, but what exactly Israel supposed to do when they keep getting attacked?

First of all they should not occupy any territory that doesn't belong to them, because that makes the attacks entirely reasonable and justified.