Please also keep in mind that Israel have occupied far more land - and promptly given it back as soon as a lasting peace agreement with the country in question was signed (more or less the entire Sinai. And the country who signed a lasting peace treaty and never had trouble with Israel again is Egypt).
Also, please keep in mind that significant more Jews has been chased out of surrounding Arab countries than Arabs from Israel so anyone asking if UN really divided it in a fair way should also have a good case if they weren't up against almost the entire western world, especially academia and journalists who by now have a deep and vested interest in keeping such facts of the table.
Edit: my point in the second paragraph is that I don't think it is fair to demand that Israel retreat from hard-to-attack positions that gives enemies significant advantages (especially Golan) without a lasting peace agreement.
Edit 2: as for Judea and Samaria which constitute a large part of the remaining "occupied territories" they were first captured by Jordan (which was supposed to be the Arab part of the British mandate from the start and which got 70% of the land before the UN resolution which cut the remaining 30% into a Jewish and an Arab part.)
Israel then took it from Jordan in the 1967 war and has been administering it since then.
This is always presented with the implication that they should have accepted the plan.
I think if someone, even the UN came to you (and by 'you' I mean group of people of multiple religions living in your state / country etc ) and said "I've got a wonderful plan that I want you to accept. You people who currently live in the whole of this land will get to live in less than half of the land. What do you think about that?"
I'm not sure many people would accept this.
That said:
Want to hear a joke? The UN. [1]
Have you ever seen me defend the UN on this site?
But, when the UN is responsible for todays situation to such large degree, and when someone pulls out that map, then the fact that only one part agreed to that map becomes a point.
[1]: This however is not a joke: You know why there are so many resolutions from the UN against Israel compared to the other way around? Because USSR used its veto power to block almost every single proposal that suggested condemnation of Arab states while USA allowed a number of those who condemned Israel to slip through.
Let's be clear, forcibly removing an indigenous population of over 750,000 people (this included my parents) is a crime. These refugees and their decedents have a right to return to their land. This has to be acknowledged and only then will the region move on.
Here, South Africa is a great example of a peaceful coexistence: while it has its problems, the country has moved on after Apartheid.
This is the root Palestinian problem. It's not a complicated story.
Yes, forcibly removing 750 000 people can absolutely be considered a crime.
But what then about the more than 750 000 Jews that were forcibly removed from their homes in the neighboring countries?
Should they also have the right to return?
Does it matter that Arab leadership encouraged your parents and others to leave? (In addition to the barbaric actions of certain Israeli groups.)
Because both sides are displaced, only your side was on top of that also betrayed by their own leadership and used as a pawn while the Israeli side took care of its own people including to a large degree Arabs who chose to stay.
When it comes to South Africa I have close friends and even relatives there. A fellow sysadmin friend of mine got knocked to the ground there by a gun (used to hit, not shoot) just last year in a robbery. People have to use guns, barbed wire and more to protect themselves. Politics is more or less crazy as far as I understand.