There's a vast difference between legitimate, legal, welcomed immigration and invasion sanctioned by foreign states that results in the creation of an occupied territory, but you already knew that.
I mean, if you think that a land that is filled with 20th century cities and has a documented history of being highly populated for thousands of years is the same thing as a continent that is practically empty, I don't know what to tell you.
South America had cities. (not 20th century, admittedly). The settlement of south africa involved murdering a large amount of natives... I'm not not sure what to tell you!
Wait, you said South America and South Africa. The former certainly had cities; the latter was mostly wasteland with some amount of nomadic peoples who couldn't stay in one place because living off the land in one place was impossible without agriculture. Vastly different situation.
Either way, sounds like another case of wrongdoing that doesn't excuse anyone else's actions. What is my takeaway from this supposed to be? Murdering Palestinians with sniper rifles and lobbing bombs at them is OK because someone a hundred years ago elsewhere did something entirely unrelated that was evil? Or that colonialism is just generally OK overall and should be fine?
