I disagree. The concept of a "Palestinian people" is quite new. I believe it dates back only to the time of the 1967 War. Prior to that, there were Arabs who wanted to wage war, kill the Jews and take the land. After the war, a new strategy was adopted. Some of the Arabs who lived in Jordan decided to call themselves "Palestinians". Oh, they continued to wage war, and kill the jews, but they also tried to go a political route thru the UN in order to take the land.
IMO, people who call themselves "Palestinian" are not identifying themselves as a true ethnic group (no such thing) but are instead revealing their political ideology (and its a nasty one).
Let's not play word games. There are several million people living in that part of the ME, you admit that they're a cohesive political entity, and they call themselves Palestinians. They cannot be parceled out to the neighboring countries, because they're not Jordanians or Syrians, or whatever.
You can call them whatever you want, but in effect, they are the "Palestinian people," and many of them do in fact have a heritage in the area that predates the formation of Israel.
Thus we have a large, politically cohesive entity in the region, whose "statehood" claims can be justified on the basis of the same 1948 resolution that created Israel -- though the behavior of the Palestinians does not at present justify any sort of self-rule.
These are the realities on the ground: the Palestinians are for all intents and purposes "a people." They are too numerous to be relocated, especially since nobody wants them. They are led by murderers. They may or may not be capable of becoming civilized.
If they cannot be civilized, then there is no option but extermination. Because extermination is not an acceptable option, we must procede on the assumption that they can be civilized -- and there is no reason to suspect that, absent their murderous leaders, the Palestinians can't behave peacefully.