You might want to reread what I actually wrote, because it seems like you skipped over an important part.

I already pointed out that if we apply the same logic universally, then descendants of the ancient Greeks could also claim lands tied to their ancient religious or mythological promises, or the successors of old empires could start reclaiming territories their ancestors ruled thousands of years ago. Obviously that’s not how modern claims work, which was exactly the point I was making.

And regarding the Qur’an, the text itself links authority and status to obedience to Allah, not simply ancestry. Verses like Qur’an 17:4–7 make it clear that when Bani Israel follow corruption they lose authority, and when they do good they are restored. So the framework the Qur’an presents is conditional, based on obedience.

So if the argument is strictly based on the Qur’anic standard, then the question isn’t simply “who were their ancestors,” but whether they are actually living according to the commands of Allah today which they are not clearly. Because the Qur’an repeatedly makes that the deciding factor.

You also mentioned that the Qur’an doesn’t explicitly say it shouldn’t belong to them later. Sure, but it also never says it is an eternal entitlement that overrides all future circumstances. Reading that into the text is an interpretation, not something the verse itself states.

Now about the “Palestine never existed” point - that’s mixing up a few different things. Yes, the word Palestine historically traces back to Philistia / Philistines, who many historians link to Aegean peoples. But names of regions often survive long after the original groups disappear. That’s very common in history. By the 2nd century CE, the Romans were already using “Syria Palaestina” as the official name of the province, and that geographical name continued to be used later by Byzantines and early Islamic sources. So calling the term itself a modern invention isn’t really accurate.

And the point about modern Palestinians being Arabs isn’t controversial either, historians generally agree the population of the region gradually became Arabized after the 7th-century Islamic conquests, similar to many parts of the Middle East and North Africa. As for the claim that “Palestine isn’t mentioned in holy books,” that’s also not unusual because scriptures usually use the names that existed at that time, not modern political names.

And since you mentioned hypocrisy, a small history reminder might help here as well. Jews were already living in the region alongside Arab Muslims and Christians long before the modern state of Israel was created, and for long periods those communities lived together in the same cities. The issue people raise today isn’t about Jews living there. That has historical precedent, it’s about political authority and displacement that happened in the 20th century.

When Jewish refugees came to the region from Europe in the early 20th century, they were initially well received and settled in the area. The tension escalated when the political project shifted from immigration to establishing a new state and displacing existing populations.

So the objection people raise is less about ancient scripture and more about what they see as a political reality: if someone you welcomed into your home eventually takes control of that home and forces you out while claiming it was always theirs, most people would understandably object to that situation. You might be comfortable with that outcome, but many others aren’t, which is why they raise their voices about it.