When someone says that Palestinians are also settlers because the Arab caliphate invaded that land, respond with one simple question. Was the conquest of Syria by the Arab caliphate good or bad for Jews?
If they say it was bad, then they’re saying it would have been better for Jews to remain living under the (Eastern) Roman empire which had expelled the Jews from Jerusalem, and promoted as state ideology the belief that the Jews literally killed God (see Christianity).
In the first few decades of the 7th century, Persia was fomenting Jewish revolts against Roman rule, causing Rome to lose control of Syria and Egypt temporarily, but after the Romans re-asserted control, the Jews were killed and expelled.
Therefore, the Arab-Muslim conquest of Syria and Jerusalem was good for Jews insofar as the Arabs allowed Jews the right of return to Jerusalem, and of course Islam doesn’t accuse Jews of killing Jesus let alone killing God, rather Jews are considered ‘people of the book’.
Did the Arab caliphate even expel anyone when they conquered the Holy Land? No, whereas the Biblical Israelites slaughtered their way through Canaan (Palestine) and massacred the ‘prophets of Ba’al’.
For most of history, it has been Persians, Arabs and Muslims who fought for the right of Jews to return to Palestine, the same right that Israel now denies the Palestinians. How is that even remotely fair from a civilisational perspective? It’s not, therefore, Israel can justify itself only on the principle that ‘might is right’ – it has no ethical foundations.
Yes, I know that modern ‘Arabised’ Palestinians have ancient ancestry, including Aramean, Canaanite, and Hebrew etc. They have the greater claim to genetic indigeneity BY FAR, that said, this argument is about state legitimacy, beginning with the caliphate.