No, that's not a sufficiently accurate description of early Zionist migration to Palestine. It was overwhelmingly non-forceful. It wasn't invited, and the ambitions of Zionism placed Zionists on a collision course with the expected goals of the Arab population, but it wasn't forceful at first.
Zionists were more or less getting what they wanted: they were finding ways to settle in Palestine. But when they were opposed violently, they responded in kind rather than back down.
Zionism is, on the face of it, somewhat unreasonable, because it presumes a right to go somewhere that isn't yours, make it yours, and have control of it instead of the people who are already there. If you believe in freedom of association and movement across international borders, and Zionists stay within the law / typical human custom (e.g. you buy things rather than steal them) then Zionism is pretty much fine, but if you believe that people have a right to conduct their own affairs, having a bunch of others come in and conduct their affairs instead is not so great. Zionists believe(d) that they should have the right to conduct their own affairs, which makes the entire endeavor rather hypocritical.
However, violence is not a particularly good means of redress for this sort of thing. We have more organized and humane ways to solve these sorts of conflicts. I mean, you can grab a gun and go to the border in the U.S., but you shouldn't. You can riot against and kill Haitians or Guatemalans or whomever, but you shouldn't. You can riot against and kill Zionists, but you shouldn't. Rather, if it matters to you, you deploy sufficient resources to detain and remove people who are places that you don't permit them to be.
The Ottoman Empire didn't care very much. Nor did the British. The Palestinians' problem was, in part, that they didn't have a state, and powers who controlled the area weren't particularly sensitive to Palestinians' preference to not have Jewish migration.
So there was migration first. Then forceful resistance to the migration. Then forceful occupation overpowering the forceful resistance.
It's not easy at this point to rearchitect history. We're left to try to make things tolerable for the people who are basically decent which means (1) Hamas doesn't kill Israelis and (2) Israel doesn't kill Palestinians.
Regarding Republicans shifting their views--yes, I said as much: "the parties can just shift positions a little bit and both are competitive again".
And I fully blame Republicans for pioneering gerrymandering. Democrats have, after several decades, pretty much caught up, mostly by doing their own gerrymandering when they can: https://washingtonmonthly.com/2023/01/04/the-decline-and-possible-resurrection-of-radical-gerrymandering/
Two wrongs don't make a right, but the wrong is more balanced now.
The electoral college is weird. One person one vote in Indiana, but one person 0.86 votes in California and one person 3.2 votes in Wyoming. And then it's winner-take-all by state, which means it's effectively, for the Presidency, one person 0 votes in California, Indiana, and Wyoming, among others, but one person 5.4 votes in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Arizona, and so on. But if the electoral college wasn't there, Republicans would just shift their views a bit until they were competitive with a national vote. It would probably be more healthy overall, but it's hard to predict.
Regarding 99%+ of Palestinians not taking any vengeful actions, well, no, not personally, not any really serious ones anyway. But their responsibility has been to elect leaders who don't start a war, and they failed at that.
If Lebanon or Iran bombs Israel as a result of Netanyahu's current aggression and there are many casualties, the citizens of Israel do absolutely bear some responsibility for failing to elect leadership that avoids dragging them into war.
Hamas had a really easy job in that regard. Simply don't kill large numbers of Israelis.