The article does not come to that conclusion. The article only points out that there is no traditional "Palestinian" state or culture. You mentioned the Egyptians not having a native-born leader for many years, but that fact did not change the fact that Egypt had a distinct land and culture. You mentioned that the Turkish empires controlled much of the Middle East for many years, but you don't tell what point this fact is supposed to support. The article says that while the Ottoman Empire controlled the land, no one actually lived in what people are trying to call "Palestine."
The conclusion of the article is that this land was uninhabited wasteland until the beginning of the last century. When the Arabs heard that it was to be given to the Jews, they moved there first to keep the Jews from having it. While I feel sorry for the descendants of the people who moved for such spiteful reasons, the notion that they have a traditional attachment to the land is silly. To the extent that they share the "don't give the Jews a place to live" attitude of their parents, they certainly don't have any moral claim on any land.
If you can refute the content of this article, you will have a point. As it is, your post doesn't seem to add much light to the subject.
WFTR
Bill
Before the British took over Palestine and began the process of colonizing it with Jews, there were approximately 700,000 inhabitants, a tiny poriton of whom were Jews. I must say that your usage of the word uninhabbited is quite unconventional.