The Israeli settlements in Gaza were dismantled and the settlers forcibly evicted, by Israel, in 2005. "The evacuations of six settlements then commenced as 14,000 Israeli soldiers and police officers forcibly evicted settlers and "mistanenim" (infiltrators). They went house to house, ordering settlers to leave and breaking down the doors of those who did not." If that's not decolonization, what is?

What I am asking about a statute of limitations involves the right to return. Jews had always lived in that area, though not very many at some points in history. The question is: do Jews have a right of return to their ancestral homeland? If no, why not? If yes, under what conditions?

I don't think there is a standard liberal humanist answer. I think, rather, that people intuit an answer and then twist themselves into knots trying to justify it as if it was derived from accepted principles.

"Palestinians who weren't born yet have a right to return to places their ancestors were kicked out of, but Jews whose even more distant ancestors were kicked out do not have a right to return" is a difficult-to-justify statement if both groups have kept alive a culture of wishing for a return. At the very least it demands a solid justification. "Here from afar, not being you, it feels to me like this counts and that doesn't (I don't care how you feel)" is profoundly unsatisfying.

Being against violent Zionism is not the same thing as being against peaceful Zionism. Are you saying that racial supremacist violence is okay, as long as it's against a group that is moving in, even if they're doing so legally? Because that's exactly what happened early in the Zionist effort. Are you saying that it's okay as long as it's to keep your culture and religion from changing--so for example the far right wing of the Republican party in the U.S. is exactly right about immigration and immigrants and so on, and in fact violence is justified--or immigrants who are attacked mustn't fight back? What is your claim in this regard?

The reason why you absolutely must mention Hamas is because liberals understand that criminal behavior is not to be infinitely tolerated. The rules that you follow when people are behaving peacefully and lawfully are not the same as those that apply to criminals who threaten the life and livelihood of others or which apply to external powers which are trying to exterminate you. You not addressing this doesn't undermine the pro-Palestinian side, but it completely undermines your arguments because you have to give a proper liberal accounting for that aspect of the situation.

It is a complex issue with a lot of relevant history for ordinary liberal ideas of fairness and harm avoidance.

I'm not entirely sure a liberal perspective is even applicable, given how illiberal many of the viewpoints are of the parties involved, and how ill-defined the liberal approach is when you are dealing with a bunch of bad actors. But if it is deeply applicable, you need to state or refer to enough context.