• For many Jews and supporters of Israel: The name "Israel" represents a powerful reclaiming of a historic and spiritual identity after centuries of exile and persecution, culminating in the Holocaust. The state is seen as the fulfillment of a long-held national dream, using a name that connects modern citizens to their deep historical roots.
  
  
• For critics and many Palestinians: The use of the biblical name is viewed as a calculated act to legitimize a political project with religious and historical claims, overshadowing the rights and existence of the indigenous non-Jewish population of the land. This perspective views the modern state's actions through a political lens, arguing that religious language is used to mask political motivations and historical injustices.
  
  
• For some religious observers: There is a theological distinction drawn between the ancient covenantal nation of Israel and the modern secular state. Some Christians and Orthodox Jews believe that the biblical prophecies of restoration relate to a spiritual return or a messianic age, not to a secular, politically founded state. 

• Zionist activism: The Zionist movement, organized in the late 19th century, lobbied for a Jewish homeland in response to increasing antisemitism in Europe.
  
  
• British Mandate: After World War I, the League of Nations granted Britain a mandate over Palestine, incorporating the Balfour Declaration into its terms.
  
  
• Holocaust and UN partition: The horrors of the Holocaust galvanized international support for a Jewish state. In 1947, the United Nations voted to partition Palestine into separate Arab and Jewish states.
  
  
• 1948 Declaration: The State of Israel was formally declared by Jewish leaders in May 1948, following the end of the British Mandate. 

• Nationalist claims vs. indigenous rights: Was the creation of Israel the triumphant return of an exiled people, or a colonial project that displaced the local Arab population?
  
  
• Religious narrative vs. political reality: To what extent does the modern state rely on a biblical narrative to sanctify a political and military campaign?
  
  
• Legitimacy: How does the international legal process (the UN vote) and the political motives of external powers (Britain) relate to the Zionist movement's ideological claims and the self-determination of the Jewish people?

Ultimately, what one makes of the modern state's name and origins depends on which historical narrative one accepts and prioritizes. For some, it is a glorious resurrection; for others, it is a historical injustice founded on a politically opportunistic use of a powerful, ancient name.

Given world history and events associated to ISRAEL, that why does such people go on to believe Palestine is not in the Bible as well?

• The Philistines: The Hebrew word Pelesheth (meaning "land of the Philistines") appears multiple times in the Old Testament, and in the King James Version of the Bible, this was sometimes translated as "Palestina" or "Palestine".
  
  
• Geographical distinction: In the ancient context, Pelesheth or Philistia was a specific, limited region on the southern coastal plain of Canaan. It did not refer to the entire land that would later become known as Palestine. The Bible itself uses terms like "Canaan," "Israel," and "Judea" to refer to the broader land. 

• Emperor Hadrian's decree: The major historical development that gave the name "Palestine" its wider use occurred in the 2nd century AD. After crushing the Jewish Bar Kokhba revolt in 135 AD, the Roman Emperor Hadrian renamed the Roman province of Judaea to Syria Palaestina.
  
  
• Motivation for the name change: According to the prevailing scholarly view, this act was a deliberate attempt to erase the Jewish connection to the land. By naming the province after the ancient enemies of Israel, the Romans sought to humiliate the Jewish population.
  
  
• Perpetuation of the name: Following this Roman change, the name "Palestine" was adopted into the general lexicon and continued to be used for centuries, including during the British Mandate in the 20th century. 

• "Biblically inaccurate": They see the name "Palestine" as biblically inaccurate for the entire Holy Land and believe that using it denies the land's biblical name of Israel.
  
  
• Theological argument: Some argue that the use of the term today plays into a "propaganda war" against the modern state of Israel, a state whose name is seen as biblically and historically justified.
  
  
• Historical context vs. religious authority: This perspective places the authority of the biblical narrative above the subsequent political history of the region. 

• The name's long history: While the term "Palestine" wasn't used in the Bible to describe the entire land, it has been used for nearly 2,000 years, establishing a historical and geographic tradition for the name.
  
  
• Identity and indigeneity: The term "Palestinian" was used to describe Arabs, Jews, and Christians who lived in the region during the British Mandate. The modern Palestinian national identity, which emerged in the 20th century, is rooted in the indigenous Arab population's connection to the land and their opposition to Zionist colonization.
  
  
• Biblical vs. political legitimacy: Critics argue that using a religious text to invalidate the modern Palestinian claim to the land is a distortion of history. A national identity is a political phenomenon, not a purely theological one, and it evolves over time. 

Should the Palestinian State also be one that could potentially have citizens who love God and honor God's word and their relationship with God?

https://rumble.com/v704c4y-this-is-the-true-israel.html