After spending some time observing the arguments on both sides of the issue, Ive noticed that both parties support their claims of having right to the land of Israel/Palestine by referring to some time in the past in which their ancestors lived there. They anchor their demands in a cultural, religious, and historical attachment to the land.

Palestinians say: "We've been living here for generations, my parents lived here, so did my grandparents, and so did my great grandparents you cant just start bringing settlers from Europe, America, and other places, who have no connection to this land but the religious pseudo-arguments they make! "

Israelis say: "You don't understand. My ancestors were here way long before any of your ancestors came. The Kingdom of Israel existed in this place 3000 years ago! We were here before you and were then kicked out, so it is our right to come back and claim what has always belonged to us!"

So then my question comes: On what basis are we to establish to whom any given piece of land belongs: (1). on the basis of who inhabited the land more recently before the conflict erupted (aka Palestinians) or (2). on the basis of whose ancestors inhabited the piece of land first (aka Israel)?

And, whichever one you choose, on what meta-principle are you making that choice?

I think this issue has been derailed because discourse has become too pragmatic, instead of trying to establish a philosophical, a priori scheme, against which the political pragmatic facts could be judged.