I'm not quoting him; just trying to use logic. I know what I said is not novel but when I try to figure it out, then that's where I end up.
As for religion, it's a personal matter to me. It's between me and my belief. I don't need weapons or land to believe in a particular version of the after-life. So it does not form a legal basis or a moral justification to kill someone. Gandhi said something like this: "There are many causes I would die for but none I would kill for." That is probably a paraphrase. It's a personal point of view and it's highly idealistic in some cases, such as Hitler. The point being, to kill for a religious reason is beyond my moral code. So, we are back to the right of the Jews to that land. I get that in their world, the holocaust was the final straw; they were not going to trust anyone to care and die for their national/racial interest. But the indigenous Palestinians had nothing to do with that. It became a moral imperative for the Jews and in their mind, the world owed it to them. But is that true? Did the world owe it to them and should the world kill any Arab who attempts to overturn that decision?
Yes, my legal right to my land is built upon the force of the Constitution of the United States (in theory) and all claims prior to that are invalid. How did the Constitution come into being?
Force.