No, the fact that they bought the land is what made it theirs. It might be advantageous if you bother to learn history before attempting to discuss it.

the united states doesnt deserve to exist because they needed outside help to win their revolution. 

Just for this I spent the last 20 minutes reading, and the best I reason I got for the jewish claim of land was that they asserted 'historic title of the Jewish people to Palestine. That last one was copied from wikipedia which led me to a broken link on the UN site. Maybe I missed soethign but I did not see anything about jews buying the land from the local population, just that they cited some recommendatoin from the UN and that somehow made them "their neighbourhoods."

It is questionable whether the colonialists would have been defeated were it not for France's help.

Try the Peel Commission Report.

And here I thought there was some deal that went down a la Louisiana Purchase where there was a formal deal of "this land now becomes your sovereignty, and this money becomes mine." I am slightly disappointed. Jews had been buying land since before the 20th century from the Ottomans, and just because they bought it doesn't mean it was somehow their new sovereign nation. As I already said, Europe should have just given the land to the palestinians with agreement not to be destructive of the jewish population, not give the jews their own sovereign state.

If you want to buy land in certain parts of Texas to this day, you sometimes have to go back to records from Spanish rule to figure out who currently owns it. The deeds didn't cease to be binding just because the Ottomans were defeated by the British, nor did they when the British mandate was terminated. Suppose the UN were inclined to go with your hare-brained suggestion. When the Arabs began attacking Jewish neighborhoods en masse (to the point that the British could not stop them), it was clear that there would be never be a guarantee of safety for the Jews.

Furthermore, you continue to wrongly consider the Jews as aliens and the Arabs as the natives. The Arab population of Palestine more than doubled from the 1890s until Israeli independence largely on the strength of immigration from other Arab provinces and driven, ironically, by economic opportunities created by the Jews.

Dude.... vlad you've completey contradicted yourself at this point.

And this is why a "logic based society" like you want won't work... you want such a thing but can't even keep your logic remotely consistant.

If romans conquering Jews = Jews lose claim... then Jews conquering Palestinians = Palestinians lose claim.

Espiecally when the Palestinians got way more help then the Jews.

I already mentioned exactly what my problem with jews conquering palestinians is. They had help from a neutral party that the other side wouldn't attack ( I think in this case it was Czechoslovakia, could have been Hungry but I am not sure). It wasn't so much palestinians attacking the jews as much as all arabic locals attacking the jews. All of which would be affected by having a jewish state in the middle of the islamic region. If the arabic league had won then the resolution could have STILL been all sorts of fucked for the palestinians depending on how the land would have been partitioned.

My problem specifically is the western help that the jews received.

Your second paragraph is highly, HIGHLY debatable, because I am sure that I can find as much well backed literature against it as I can for it.

We don't know what the outcome would have been in the first case either. For all you know, the jews could have just found a way to leverage a better political power within the region once things got setteled, effectively having a say in a country of their own. At this point we are both speculating.