Actually, I agree with this; except for the bit about "displacement of 'Palestinians,'" that is.
I've been arguing about this with people at my synagogue about the best way to argue for the right of the modern State of Israel to exist. The Bible is nice, but it doesn't convey any legal right or prohibition unless that right or prohibition is imported into a modern legal structure. Suggesting that it has some standing outside of a modern legal context is little different from suggesting that Sharia Law does.
The right of the people in Israel to govern themselves as they do is based upon the right to own and control private property. The land in Palestine was purchased by an assortment of people whom we refer to as Zionists beginning in the late 19th century (when it was mostly desolate) under the laws of the Ottoman Turks who controlled property transfers at that time. These purchases continued under British law after WWI, and now under Israeli law since 1948. The Arabs who didn't sell or abandon their property still have it (or the people they transferred it to do). To be sure some property, including Arab property, has been condemned under eminent domain claims. All governments do this. But the notion of Arabs being forced at gunpoint or similar threat to abandon their property is almost entirely false. Virtually no one has been displaced, unless perhaps they never had any legal claim in the first place. (And except perhaps in PA administered areas like Bethlehem, and there the only Arabs being displaced are Christian Arabs.)
ML/NJ
you are correct. the lands of Israel were purchased legally in modern historic times.