The Levant (northern part) circa 830 BCE and (all of it) today.

Notice that the two kingdoms of Israel did not control the southern Levant, but they did control the West Bank and even to the East of the Jordan River, land that today is in the county of Jordan, and - if I'm reading the map correctly - part of present day Syria (roughly the Golan Heights, which Israel occupies for defensive purposes but which are legally still Syrian).

Nobody would be satisfied with returning to those borders, I'm sure: not Israelis, Palestinians, Jordanians, nor Syrians.

But they raise a question for the Palestinian claim "from the river to the sea."Why should the descendants of the non-Isralite peoples of the region get all of it, including the Israelite/Jewish land they settled and the descendants of the Israelites none of it?

What sanctifies the Arabic occupation of the 7th century CE that doesn't likewise justify Jewish re-occupation now?

What basis is there for condemning Jewish re-occupation that doesn't also condemn the Arabic occupation?

(Should public officials in certain regions of Jordan, Syria, and the West Bank be expected to do land acknowledgements that they are on occupied Jewish territory?)