Ahh...
The way I've heard it explained is that the concept of 'natures' was rendered 'physis' in Greek, and something else in Aramaic (sorry, don't know Aramaic).
The basic meanings of the words were the same, but the connotations just a little different, so Greeks go 'duh, of course Christ has two natures, he's fully God and fully Man', and the Aramaic speakers go 'duh, he's one, indivisible, of course he's got one nature'.
Not REALLY disagreeing on theology, but on linguistics. But, because of the slight twist on translation, it SEEMED like they were disagreeing, and so anathemas were hurled.
If you look at 'monophysite' areas, they are all non-Greek speaking areas. The 'duophysite' were Greek and Latin areas.
So, Palestine leaned monophysite, sure. Because they spoke the same Aramaic as Syria and most of the rest of the Middle East.
You also get the further complication that the further provinces (especially those separated by language), felt isolated from the center of the Empire, and a mild 'heresy' was one way to express outrage with the Capital.
Of course, once you've GOT the split, then theology diverges a bit more, but the core theologies aren't that different, often.
Personally, I think that the 'miaphysite' variant of 'monophysite' is perfectly compatible with my (essentially duophysite) belief, because us humans trying to define what God's 'nature' is is an exercise in hubris as much as it is in theology.