Also, based on history, Jews were returning to the land they had been expelled from.
Literally
THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO.
Also, I'm not a fan of literal ethno-nationalism. No race of people is entitled by right to any specific plot of land in exclusivity purely because of their race, especially not when their claim is LITERAL THOUSANDS OF YEARS OLD and the thing they do to "reclaim" that land involves the ETHNIC CLEANSING OF HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE LIVED THERE FOR CENTURIES.
Yes, Israel exists as an explicit act of colonization. Personally, I don't feel that this in any way disqualifies the right of Israel to exist (if we're going to start suggesting that countries that are a result of colonisation shouldn't exist, basically no nations would exist), nor does it make the people of Israel explicit colonisers (same logic as the above - we clearly should make a distinction between groups responsible for carrying out the act of colonisation and those who, through no fault of their own, simply end up being citizens of a state that was a colonial project).
The issue here is with the blatant ethno-nationalist implications of this statement, not to mention the fact that if you're using "returning to the land they had been expelled from" as a implicit justification for the mass ethnic displacement that Israel carried out, then you don't even have a moral basis for objecting to Hamas calling for the ethnic displacement of Israelis and Jews.
According to you, that's morally fine. It's perfectly okay to use the fact that you were ethnically displaced as a justification for ethnically displacing others.
And it was the Arab nations which tried to wipe them out in 1947 for starters.
Again, according to you, engaging in ethnic displacement is absolutely fine. So what's the issue?