http://indymedia.org.il
No, it is your reasoning that is encumbered
author: Peter Kropotkin
"The Lord appeared to Abram and said, 'I will assign this
land to your offspring.' That way they disregard the Biblical promise made by the Lord to Abram, which promises Canaan to the off springs of Abram- the Jews, Christian and
Muslims"
Your logic is built up on the necessity of religio-mystical phenomenon.
To prove the legitimacy of this contract and your logic stemming out of it you would have to prove not only the existence of God in general, but the existence of the specific god of Israel. Further, you would have to prove that this God actually nullified this contract and that Jesus was indeed the Son of God, and you would have to prove that Mohammed was the last true prophet.
Otherwise, these are just words in an old book.
Dr. Spieglehouse (or however it is spelled), on the other hand, is basing his assumptions in verifiable evidence.
Moreover, he seems to me to be trying to argue against the use of indigenousness as a claim to legitimacy at all (neither for the Palestinians or the Israelis)
This is obviously a much more easily defensible line of reasoning than your non-scientific mystical mojo.