However, many "Palestinians" migrated into the area during the past century after the Jewish settlement of the land presented economic opportunities. Most of the families of our Arab friends originally came from places like Egypt and Syria.
In any case, Newt is correct that there has never been a sovereign, independent country named "Palestine." The Romans called the land after the ancient Philistines, but even then it was part of the Roman province of Syria. After the Romans came the Byzantines and various Arab Caliphates, none of which accorded the land an independent status as a sovereign state.
Newt's posture essentially amounts to resetting the negotiations, challenging the very premise of a "Palestinian" state, and asking why isn't the Arab state of Jordan a proper "state" for the Arab people who used to live in the region referred to as Palestine.
If you start negotiations from that position, there is a possibility of a compromise solution. But if you give all that up before you start, they're going to want more.
Also, as a practical matter, a major tactic of the Palestinians is to separate the U.S. from Israel. By taking an aggressive posture, we actually make it easier for Israel. Rather than us being the big brother who may or may not support the younger one, we become the big brother who has to be held back. We are put into the Reagan role in the 1980 hostage crisis, with Iran wanting to cut a deal with Carter because they were scared of what Reagan might do as President. Maybe the Palestinians being worried about a more aggressive U.S. will induce a more coniliatory attitude on their part.
It certainly couldn't hurt.