I can't help but think your framing is a little off. It's more like someone stole the item, then gave it to their kids, who gave it to their kids, who gave it to their kids, who gave it to their kids, who sold it to someone else, who gave it to their kids. And then asking those kids to give up the item (in this case their property and home?).
So all you need to do to get away with theft is wait and move it around a bunch after the initial theft? And the rightful owner loses their right to it?
Like I feel like your perspective sounds nice and empathetic for about three seconds, then you realize you're advocating another ethnic cleansing in response to ethnic cleansing. Or not, I guess it's possible to think ethnic cleansing is good.
Returning land to the people it was stolen from isn't ethnic cleansing, and it's a typical settler response to accuse their victims of hypothetically doing something the colonizers are already guilty of.
Sure, we didn't invade these countries but we maintain the colonial power structures and continue to benefit from colonisation as indigenous people continue to be dispossessed.
It's easy and convenient to point your finger at the past and say thats where all the responsibility lies
I mean, depends on your definition of invasion. I have no problem calling British and French colonization of North America "invasion" but my main point is, Israel is actively doing it right now and all of the other countries listed did it hundreds of years ago where we can't reach them.