Now "The Palestinians should of had a country because they were there and the West was breaking up the Ottoman Empire is a good arguement."
Though completely contrary to your "who was there before the Ottomans" arguement... and partly that arguement why I think the british decided to put jewish people there. There only national home had been located there and had been taken away by one empire after another... and well they were forcibly removed from Palestine. The jews didn't leave, they were driven out of the territory and spread all across the roman empire.
And well, the West was meddling by breaking apart the Ottoman empire as it was.
Though also if you make that arguement... that same arguement can be made for Israel, at this point.
The current rulers are the last known local rulers who were forcibly removed by outside empires.
The only reason it may seem unjust is because it's been like 2000 years since that happened. Though considering the mass explusions that kept happening basically everywhere the jews went, the massive anti-semitism and such, you can see why they are a bit skittish and would want a national homeland... and perferably the national homeland they were all run out of.
When you consider the entire history of it... I find it hard to believe that its logical to consider the Jewish presence ins Israel/Palestine as an affront.
It's just, only was impractical because of the time past... but was already done.
It would be like if the US was conquered by like... China, freed by Europe... and they put all the relevent native american tribes back to where they "belong" based on where they were.
Problematic, yes.
Is there a reason for doing so? Also yes.
