Do any of those Jews "returning" have any evidence that they have ancestors from that territory?
What would you require for "proof" that could be applied objectively and universally?
For example, how would you apply the concept of "proof" to First Nations Americans? Or to Catalans? Or to Kurds? Or to Scots? Or, for that matter, to "Palestinians"?
Well, the Palestinians have records of citizenship.
But citizenship is not ancestry. You imply that ancestry gives some sort of legitimacy but then refuse to apply that definition to all peoples. You demand proof of ancestry for one group, while only proof of citizenship for the other. Thus an Arab family from elsewhere who buys a farm in "Palestine" in the 1930s is, according to you, a legitimate Palestinian while a Jewish family from elsewhere who buys a farm in "Palestine" in the 1930s is, according to you, a foreign invader.
You can't have it both ways. Either citizenship is the criteria we are using -- in which case both families listed above are legitimate. OR foreign familial birth is the criteria -- in which case neither of the families listed above are legitimate. Or ancestry is the criteria, which you have been unable to provide a definition for.
What criteria are you using to determine, in practice, who are "settler colonists" and "foreign invaders"? YOU are actually defining people as "foreign invaders" using their cultural and religious background as the criteria for that definition. You never use the terms "foreign invaders" or "settler colonists" when referring to people of Arabic cultural and religious background -- you use that exclusively for Jewish people.
So how about if I use the same criteria that you use -- their cultural and religious background? How to prove ancestry? Easy. Does their cultural and religious background match with the indigenous, pre-invasion culture? Well, let's check. Same language. Same religion. Same system of laws. Same holidays. Same life celebrations. Same traditional foods. Same traditional names. Same clothing. (etc, etc, etc). Well, well. It appears that it DOES, indeed, match. Ancestry proven. Using, actually, the same criteria that you use.
Now, let's check to see if I can apply that universally and objectively. I'm of Scots ancestry. I actually know that for certain because we have physical documentation of my family moving to Canada from Scotland. But let's say I didn't have that documentation. But I spoke Gaelic. And I celebrated uniquely Scottish holidays. And I wore a plaid which was passed down from generation to generation. And I named my children traditional Gaelic names. And we had parritch for breakfast most mornings. Would you be reasonably convinced that I had Scots ancestry? Of course you would.
See how that works? Works pretty well, I think. And we can apply it anywhere. To all cultures. To all peoples. And it turns out that its pretty easy to recognize a Jew. Jewish culture is pretty darn definitive. Much easier than recognizing a Scot. Or a Dane. Or a Swede.
Now, you can accept that criteria and keep using it to define your "foreign invaders", but you are a hypocrite if you do not ALSO use that same criteria for proof of ancestry.
Or you can reject that criteria and reject the premise of ancestry all together and stick to using only non-cultural definitions of "foreign invaders", but you will be a hypocrite if you do not ALSO do that when describing the Jewish people.
My, my. Quite a corner you have painted yourself into, isn't it?