In case you haven't noticed, 1948 was 76 years ago. The Palestinians who had homes in the original 1948 Israel are almost all dead from old age.

There aren't a heck of a lot of residential structures left from 1948, either.

So what you're really saying is that people who never lived in a location (but heard about it from their parents and grandparents) should evict people who have lived there their whole lives.

Time has moved on. Many people have moved on. They shouldn't be held hostage by those who haven't or can't. There should be some sort of reckoning, eventually, with the ongoing consequences of the harms of the past, and that may indeed involve substantial relocations of Jews in Israel, but the cost of "right of return" in disrupting and ruining people's lives, as stated, is, frankly, inhumane.

It's not that much better than having your home bombed after you've fled it. That is, also, inhumane.

If you look at pictures of Khan Younis and think not, "Wow, look at all the smashed buildings", but rather "wow, look at how many people's lives were so grievously disrupted", and you feel for the people who lost really everything that they had tried to build for their lives, and wish for it never to happen again, you also have to wish for the right of return as you stated it to never happen.

The right of return is about ego and revenge, not the well-being of people or what's just at this point in history. Return-where-practicable could be a part of a comprehensive accounting, but that's quite different.

Mostly, people need to be able to build good lives. That requires land, freedom, education, resources, etc., but it doesn't require "return".

If Palestinian activists actually want a one-state solution that doesn't involve either ethnic cleansing or destruction of the lives of Israelis, one could scarcely imagine a bigger enemy of this plan than the Palestinians and especially Hamas. Firing rockets, conducting suicide bombings, and slaughtering festival-goers doesn't tend to be part of it of a good argument in favor of peaceful coexistence. (Neither does razing entire cities; so I think this is a non-starter for a good while.)

The plan for a one-state reunification is: (1) recognize Israel's right to exist as things are now but express aspirations for a unified country; (2) build a robust, peaceful, democratic society that is comparably appealing to the one in Israel; (3) propose that the two countries unify for mutual benefit with strong rights for everyone including restrictions that prevent the tyranny of the majority. (The premise of Zionism is that the tyranny of the majority will always used against them, so Jews had better be the majority--so it had better be extraordinarily clear that things are set up so this isn't true.)

Otherwise--suppose you have a one state solution. What prevents the Jewish-heavy parts of the state from seceding? Fundamentally, just government requires the assent of the governed.

Israel has built good lives for its citizens, including Israeli Arabs. Even if they're not quite equal, they have among the best rights and best conditions of any Arabs in the Middle East. A one-state solution that promises to destroy that is not very appealing for the people who currently have good lives (through their own collective efforts).

Furthermore, these aspirations are deeply out-of-touch with the Palestinian people. Only 10% of them say this is the ideal solution. A two-state solution is considerably more popular. (The most popular is “eventually, the Palestinians will control almost all of Palestine, because God is on their side”.)

The way to the one-state solution you claim is meant by "from the river to the sea" is through a two-state solution, or through an Israel-is-in-charge-of-it-all solution, where the West-Bank-and-Gaza are protectorates, and eventually they improve and embrace peace to the point where unification is practical.

Anyway, I was very careful to state in every case--not just "from the river to the sea" but in combination with "globalize the intifada", "by any means necessary", and other such statements. You can't say "from the river to the sea" + "by any means necessary" and rule out genocide to accomplish it. The messaging explicitly rules it in!