All good points.
Since we're on the topic of acedemic exercises....
I also see that the land of Israel, in my opinion based on the history rightfully belongs to the herirs of those who were betrayed by the muslims during the ejection of the Byzantines....and then again by the Crusaders.....and then again by the Ayyubids who made being Jewish very difficult, and nearly impossible by forcing a tax "People of the Book" on them and Christians as well. The Palestinians were not originally an ethnic group but became that but the various interlopers coming to the Levant throughout history.
I agree that nobody deserves to be a people without a homeland (like the Rom..even though they're mainly by their actions) but Israel, I believe rightfully belongs to the heirs of those ancient Jews legally speaking.
Although I am admittedly biased for the State of Israel, I am not what would be considered a Zionist by any stretch. Personally I feel myself becoming more detached to that view the deeper as I go into Orthodoxy, not forming an anti-jewish mindset, but simply as they have nothing to do with my faith and it is becoming more asinine to waste precious time on folks that deny my Lord, other than praying for them to come to Jesus.
(1) Are the blessings from the promise only supposed to come when one side is upholding their side of the covenant?
(2) If so, s that covenant being upheld on both sides?
Both good questions. My opinions are below:
1: The Old Testament makes it pretty clear that when the Israelites disobeyed God that he withdrew his hand from them (references arent really needed as Im sure we can think of MORE than a few examples)
2: This one is a little tougher considering Jesus' statements about the New Covenant. It can be easily argued that the New Covenant was an addendum to the Old Covenant in stating that Christians are looked at as God looked at the Jews in the Old Testament; that being that all Christians are sealed away as his special people as the Israelites once held that singular distinction. If this is so, then Christians would be the heirs to the holy places and the land itself.
It can also be argued that the New Covenant made the Old one invalid which means that the heirs to the ancient israelites (and by proxy, my aforementioned beliefs concerning israel) are invalid and that the Jews of today have no special right to the land as a Christian would see it....
To me, either flavor you want it, except by the blade of the the Muslim, they had no right to it whatsoever, and I would say that those Palestinians that live on the land NOW do belong there as they have had familial attachments to it....kind of how the US has Texas
EDIT: I think I just got busted by my boss