Its not the least bit crazy. What is crazy is trying to argue on the one hand that invading and colonizing peoples hold all the rights to the territory while arguing on the other that invading and colonizing peoples have no rights to the territory. What is crazy is trying to argue that expelled or murdered peoples have no rights to a territory while arguing on the other that the expelled and murdered peoples are the only ones with rights to the territory. You can't have it both ways. Either indigenous peoples whose sovereignty has been lost due to invasions, conquests, expulsions, ethnic cleansings and colonization have inherent rights or they don't. Either invaders, conquerors and colonizers assume those rights or they don't. IF the indigenous (or long-term) peoples hold the rights to the territory -- then the Roma and the Jewish people and the Palestinian Arabs have rights to their ancestral (and long-term) lands. IF the invaders, conquerors and colonizers assume those rights on successful expulsion or murder -- then the Indians, the Arab Palestinians and the Jewish Israelis assume those rights. You keep trying to exclude the Jewish peoples on both ends of the argument, without realizing that any argument that can be made for excluding the Jewish people ALSO excludes the Arab Palestinians. If you want to make the argument that an expelled or murdered peoples have lost all rights to their indigenous territory, as you do above, then you have just excluded the Palestinian people from rights to any territory overtaken by Israel.