(1) How 15 million people, dispersed as a stateless and oppressed minority all over the planet for 2000 years, are supposed to react to having a third of their number systematically exterminated on the grounds of their race by various European states within one half-decade
(2) How 1.5 million other people, having nothing at all to do with that extermination, are supposed to react when the land they have been living in for 2000 years is expropriated and given as a state to the remainder of the exterminated people by the same European states that allowed (or helped) them to be exterminated
(3) How those of the exterminated people who emigrate to the expropriated state are supposed to react to the expropriated people, who form a fifth column within and around their expropriated state
(4) How either side is supposed to react after almost 60 years of ensuing bloody tit-for-tat vendettas
My guess is that the ethics/etiquette book for such a case has not been written because the case is unique, tragic, and no one knows what right or wrong is, or what to do about it. Onlookers simply fixate selectively on the injustices and atrocities (on either side) that affect or disturb them most. And, as usual, they offer criticism and solutions without having the responsibility of testing whether they will really work, or of suffering the consequences if they do not.