They are Arab opportunists from adjoing Arab lands--for the most part, they have no equitable, legal or historical claim to any of the land. Their ancestorial claim advanced by Abas is a fraud--the original Palestinians were Greek and are long gone and unreleated to the modern contestants who have appropriated their name.
"Who is to say if the modern Israelis are related to the Israelites in any way but religion (and that has changed considerably)." Modern DNA evidence is sufficient to convince any trier of fact.
"Even if all the myths are taken at face value the nation of Israel existed for only a very few centuries and that was about 3000 years ago." The author here is not up to date on the historical evidence which has advanced significantly over the last several years--at this point, the evidence supports the biblical date of Exodus at 1461 BC. So your knowledge of the history is off a little also--Israel was in the land from 1420 to 176 AD--1600 years; maybe less 70 years of the Babylonian captivity. Certainly if nationhood in the land resolves the issue, the Palestinians have no claim not dwarfed by Israel.
Gee, I should have written 3463 instead of "about 3000". You sound like Bishop Usher. It pretty well depends on whose evidence you prefer to believe. I accepted the Exodus story for the sake of argument but if you wish to get into that we'll have to open a new thread. The evidence I read calls the Exodus story a folk memory of the Hyksos expulsion. It is quite clear (in the evidence I prefer to trust) that the Exodus could not have occurred as written many centuries after the facts in the Torah.
Yes, a very interesting study, recently published. I'll wait for some replications.
I'm not sure what "in the land" is supposed to mean but in all those years except a very few hundred the land was owned by Egypt, Persia, Greece, or Rome with the Hittites and Assyrians coming in for briefer shares. By the way, all this marvelous evidence you mention has yet to turn up any mention of David, Solomon or the early Biblical kings, although there is plenty of evidence for somewhat later kings and contemporary kings of neighboring states. There is almost no evidence for Israel in this early period--just one mention on an Egyptian stele, and that mention does not include the heiroglyph for "state" indicating that Israel at this time was a nomadic tribal group.
Or did I get off the subject?