This whole thing is really just a rabbit hole, at least for me. And a very complicated one steeped in geopolitics, world war, balfour, etc.
For me, it’s similar to arguing the Indians having claim to land in the US. The 20th century, by the end of WWII, pretty much put an end to how land was conquered for the history of mankind, even before we started building walled towns.
The history is interesting, but has little power to enforce changes to modern claims. And no, the Indians (or “native Americans”, as some prefer) are not getting any land back. I think the best thing that could happen to them, long term, is the abolishment of all land treaties and fully absorb them into the states they are currently in. Maybe that would pull them out of the abject poverty that they enjoy so much today.
But, of course, the treaties are sacred. And their leadership is a bit xenophobic.
The Western nation-state is a model foreign to the Middle East. Those places at peace rely on emirate or clan models. There has been recent talk of allied emirates instead of a Palestinian State, but the proposal has been around for many years by Mordechai Kedar and the clans themselves.
Recall way back when that newly-elected Hamas threw Palestinian Authority figures from Ramallah off the tops of tall buildings in Gaza. That’s a real rivalry.
Actually feel the same way.
The reality is that the Mohammedans of the census were a diverse group who were essentially tribal and not organized as a national group. So who holds the best claim to the land?
Whoever has the politco/military power to hold it.