Israel/Palestine

is just as Palestinian as Haniyeh and Abbas.

The problem isn't the use of the word to indicate geographic origin, the problem is that it's bifurcated--a problem attaching to a lot of words these days.

"Palestinian" is a geographical term; on the other hand, it's also an ethnic term. The two overlap but aren't coterminous.

The rhetoric rests on trying to get people to believe in something that is actually a fallacy.

It's like when there was some attacker in France: He was "French." Of course, he was born in Algeria, spoke primarily Arabic, was Muslim, lived among Muslims, identified mostly as Algerian-Arab, but his citizenship, his passport, said "French." While true, the reason for phrasing it that way was entirely to make people think, "Ah, he's French and not Arab." In other words, to manipulate and deceive.

"French" is also an ethnonym, and that particular attacker may have been French but he was not French.

Russian has a handy way of distinguishing this (clearly so until Putin came along and pissed in the well of lexical unambiguity): rossiiskii and russkii. If you're ethnically Russian, you're russkii. If you're Tatar or Yukaghir and born in Russia, you're a rossiiskii citizen. (The well-pissing was Putin's saying that if you have Russian culture then you're Russian, and the primary attribute of Russian culture is speaking Russian. So the ethnonym's now, in some sense, little different in kind than francophone or anglophone, but I don't think "russophone" sounds euphonious.)