Yes, because borders, territories, and statehood are only creations of eurocentric policies. They are definitely not a natural progression of tribalism that was capable of centralizing authority in some form. I mean it isn’t like the earliest examples are largely in Asia and Africa.

Formalizing it for the purposes of stopping wars in the current nation state is somewhat from Europe, but existed in Asia previously in a similar form.

And how is it used as a justification to steal land from natives?

Edit: and how doesn’t it matter? Like you tried to make a point and then just said it didn’t matter when challenged. And the name being used for a region is not the same as existing as a nation or state or nation state. And what’s funny is you ignored the part about how the name started to be used for the area isn’t of Judea, because the Greeks wanted it to have a purely geographical name rather than something connected to the Jews.

So what you’re saying is that Palestine itself is just some eurocentric creation used to drive off the natives from Judea?