So if that’s your argument do you just believe that israel has the right to go on a conquest and slaughter palestine? Genuine question.
I don't believe my comment indicated that. I simply don't believe that Palestine has the right to go on a conquest and slaughter Israel either.
There are things that Israel did that I strongly disagree with, in recent history most of them are connected to West bank settlements. There are more things that I disagree with that Palestine did. I think that the 1948 UN proposed 2-state solution would have been more than reasonable, and it would have likely put Palestine into a much better position than it's in now, but one can't change the past. We'll see if Israel government becomes more reasonable and thinks of a more current lasting solution, but I'm not holding my breath.
So for you, a millennia of history, distinct cultures, and dialect are meaningless.
Why do you think so? Jews also lived in the area, and the ones who came later afaik generally migrated and purchased their land legally, with the exception of migration during WW2, which was not legal, but imo pretty understandable since it was literally done by refugees running from the holocaust. People argue that it wasn't kosher since the region was under British control, but before that it was under the control of Osmans and before that the region was afaik under control of someone who conquered it for most of its history. It has never been a country.
Obviously this doesn't give Israel a claim over the whole region, but I don't think they have any less of a right for existence than Palestine.