There are several issues being tangled up in propaganda here and about the only person talking historical sense (Musket is talking some political sense) is John on the Sunset coast.

There is a time after which conquest and control confers legitimate domain - for example the Norman Conquest. That leads to two questions. First, how long is that time? Second who can reclaim after the removal of a conquering power?

The (Islamic) Ottoman Empire kicks off about 1300. It's gone (and this date is more critical) by a date that I'd put somewhere between 1919 and 1922.

I assert (and the Zionists here disagree) that none of the resulting treaties mandates etc derive power from a previous legitimate authority. They are accordingly in my view based on recent (ish) invasions and subjection. If (as many here will argue) several hundred years of English rule of Ireland did not confer historical authority, then the shorter periods since the mid-1920s do not cut the mustard.

So, the Ottomans being gone and the English etc not having legitimacy, who does have a legitimate claim to the areas that JohnotSC so usefully dubbed "the Levant".

Option 1 would be the then occupiers. That would leave most of the area vaguely Arab with a few Jewish hotspots - mostly Jerusalem (it seems - I am open to more historical detail here). If that is a sound foundation then a quick look at a map will show territorial expansion on a considerable scale by the Zionist (linguistic disconnect intended) state.

Option 2 would be the pre-Ottoman occupants. We seem to remain unclear who they were and where their descendants now are and whether they have a claim to statehood. It is however clear, whatever BB says, that the Jews (to use a perhaps not entirely apt collective description) were at the highest watermark, not very much there and had not been so for centuries and maybe more. To look at this further we'd need to look more closely at the issue of territorial abandonment (compare the Falkland Islands).

My current view (on balance) is that a Zionist claim to a historical right to so much land looks distinctly iffy.

I'm not yet persuaded that we need to look back 3,000 years or more to find a logical view on entitlement.