But the Palestinians are not ruled by their own people in their own country. The desire to be ruled (if you must be ruled) by your own people and to have your own land seems a perfectly reasonable desire. It is true that the political analogy is not perfect, but the emotional one (and emotions drive as much of politics as logic) seems fair.
This strikes me as being dubious, as if I were to say, "Washington County(TN) should be a separate nation because we don't want to be ruled by Tennesseans: we want to be ruled by our own people in our own country."
In 1948 there were massive shifts of people immediately before, during, and after the legal birth of the State of Israel. A million Mizrahim (non-European, Oriental Jews) were forced out of Morocco, Iraq, Algeria, Iran, Egypt, Tunisia, Turkey, Yemen, Libya, and these ended up being absorbed into the population of Israel, together with the European Jews who survived the Holocaust, on a tiny sliver of land.
Meanwhile, and in the opposite direction, Palestinians streamed out of Israel under wartime conditions imposed by Israel's neighbors (evacuation, voluntary fleeing from combat zones, and forced exile) and were NOT assimilated into the surrounding Muslim nations. They were crammed into stinking permanent refugee camps.
The combined territories of Arab countries is 650 fold greater than Israel. Yet they couldn't assimilate these people? Put another way, Israel is 1/650 the size of the surrounding Islamic nations --- they got the fingernail of the pinky-finger of the hand --- and yet they are supposed to give half of that fingernail to the Palestinians, just to be fair?
It makes no sense to me.