I find the past a none issue. Claims of what is right and wrong are pointless. The Israelis are there the Palestinians are there. People need to deal with it and respect each others right to life.
I have always seen the "claim to land" issue as more of a question on "When does history start?". The people who hate the jews and love the palestinians say it started 1000 years ago. The Jews say 1900 years ago.
Basically it comes down to those who say the palestinians should be there just want the palestinians there and the jews out. This ridiculous claim that a 1000 year old claim "trumps" a 1900 year old claim because it is more recent, but that the most recent claim is irrelevant, is just smokescreen. They want the jews out and are trying to find reasons to justify it.
A Short Review of the Different Governments in Palestine in the Above Periods.
In the year 3828, at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, Palestine was under the dominion of the Romans.
In the year 4092 (332), under Emperor Constantine, the Greek — Romano-Greek Empire.
In the year 4374 (614), under King Kusarai (Chosroes?) for a brief space, Persian, but later, again under the government of the Greeks.
In the year 4397 (637) under Calif Omar, Arab or Mahomedan.
In the year 4502 (742), it was for a short time under the dominion of the Turks or Tartars, but at a later period again under the Arabs.
In the year 4628 (868), under the Califs of Egypt.
In the year 4800 (1040), again under the Turks or Tartars.
In the year 4859 (1099), under the European Christians.
In the year 4947 (1187), under Saladin, Calif of Egypt.
In the year 5004 (1244), under Casiunus, i.e. under Turks or Tartars.
In the year 5051 (1291), under Sultan Asa of Egypt, under Mameluks.
In the year 5161 (1401), under Timurlan [Tamerlane], for a short time, i.e. under Mongols, than again under the Mameluks.
In the year 5278 (1518), under Selim of Constantinople, under Ottomans.
In the year 5591 (1831), under Mahmud Ali, Pacha of Egypt.
In the year 5600 (1840), under Abd al Medjid, Ottoman.
Here would well apply the passage from Judges 9:2: “What is better for you, that seventy men, all the sons of Jerubaal, should rule over you, or that one man should be your master?”
Historical Palestine was divided into two pieces, a sliver for the jewish settlers, and the rest for the arabs.
Jewish palestine was renamed "Israel", and arab palestine was renamed "Jordan".
That part of palestine that is not Israel, is Jordan. That part that isn't Jordan, is Israel.
No third country is necessary, nor is it legal, nor is it even viable. An arab west bank separate from Jordan is not economically viable, and cannot survive in isolation. Separate from Jordan, it has no markets, no jobs, no connection to the outside world. It is destined, or doomed, to be a lawless enclave, and lawless enclaves are doomed to be ruled by lawless men. Such a territory should not even be considered at all.
Israel should simply choose a border she can live with, and seal it. Those arabs living on the Israeli side of the line who are not prepared to live in peace should be compensated and expelled. And land across the line used to launch attacks should be seized, cleared, and incorporated as permanent Israeli land.
Any land not claimed by Israel should be ruled by Jordan. If Jordan refuses to accept responsibility for its west bank citizens, she can deal with them as refugees.