Would you like me to quote the conclusions of those historians... Conclusions you conveniently left out?
The first historian:
He argues that the modern national identity of Palestinians has its roots in nationalist discourses that emerged among the peoples of the Ottoman empire in the late 19th century which sharpened following the demarcation of modern nation-state boundaries in the Middle East after World War I.
...
The second historian:
However, this does not make Palestinian identity any less legitimate: "The fact that Palestinian nationalism developed later than Zionism and indeed in response to it does not in any way diminish the legitimacy of Palestinian nationalism or make it less valid than Zionism. All nationalisms arise in opposition to some "other." Why else would there be the need to specify who you are? And all nationalisms are defined by what they oppose."[12]
...
The third historian:
Even the concept of Arab nationalism in the Arab provinces of the Ottoman Empire, "had not reached significant proportions before the outbreak of World War I."[13]
...
The fourth historian:
Pipes argues that with the carving of the British Mandate of Palestine out of Greater Syria the Arabs of the new Mandate were forced to make the best they could of their situation, and therefore began to define themselves as Palestinian.
...
Literally every single historian you underlined came to my exact conclusion: that the Palestinians considered themselves a distinct people and desired a state no later than 1920. It is all there for people to read. There is no use lying about it.