The British were withdrawing from Israel as an agreement with the international community and not to appease the Jews. They did not care who they gave the land to. They may have been appeasing a faction of their own people who favored a Jewish homeland.

The United Nations and its supporters sure seem like they believe that will happen.

“When you advocate withdrawing troops because the terrorist want them out that is called appeasing.”
Who, specifically and by name, advocates withdrawing troops because the terrorists want them out?

“When you advocate giving land to the Palestinians to stop the bloodshed that is called appeasing.”
No, that is also diplomacy. Of course, such a solution doesn’t involve killing brown people, and so you naturally find it unacceptable.

In 1948, British forces withdrew from Palestine after several years of terrorist attacks conducted primarily by the militant Zionist organization known as Irgun. The withdrawal of the British effectively ceded the territory they occupied to the nascent state of Israel.

Without getting into the question of whether Israel has a right to exist (I happen to agree that it does), the British could be said to have given land to the Jews to stop the bloodshed — and thus, it was an act of appeasement. Do you find that act of appeasement on the part of the British to have been unacceptable? If not, why not?