You are correct - my intention in relation to the grammar was "palestinian" being the adjective being to describe some transient people from some place recently defined as "palestine".
I apologise to confuse by adding the "s" and it was grammatically wrong for me to add this.
The deeper issue being that the current "palestinians" have no historical claim, or certainly less (as a group) to the land recently and politically referenced as "palestine" than the Israelites and their descendants do to the same land.
...and even putting this argument aside, if one wants to consider the status quo as the borders, there is an historic and almost (but not quite inbred) hatred by the neighbours of Israel towards the inhabitants/state of Israel. Some neighbours have learnt to co-exist (Jordan and even Egypt) with Israel, but others, particularly those overrun by faction upon faction (Syria, Lebanon, Gazans/West Bank aka "palestinians") are obsessed with a mix of different agendas and therefore refuse to accept the right of an Israel to exist without the threat of incursions.
Jordan in particular know what they are dealing with in their unstable Arab cousins, however, they tend to steer clear of any serious criticism of their fellow Arabs, or conversely, any endorsement of Israel's rights to exist.
Again, we are talking about a country that is less than one-third the size of Tasmania. What the hell do the neighbours want? Talk about an obsession, although the fact is that a common enemy, in Israel, is the only thing that keeps them from even more serious fighting amongst themselves.
Back to that Hammas leader in the video who put is foot in it by confirming clearly that the people described as "palestinian" typically have Egyptian or Saudi roots (Arafat being the perfect example) and that their struggle is really an Islamic one.
