This message was self-deleted by its author

[delrem]

29. you aren't in a position to rule on who is/isn't qualified to have an opinion.

Especially when your own technique includes the conflation of technical/legal terminology when arguing your own view and countering others.
1. Law of return and jus sanguinis are very different concepts applying of different things.
"Jus sanguinis is a principle of nationality law by which citizenship is not determined by place of birth but by having one or both parents who are citizens of the nation" (wiki)
"The Law of Return is legislation enacted by Israel in 1950, that gives all Jews, persons of Jewish ancestry, and spouses of Jews the right to immigrate to and settle in Israel and obtain citizenship, and obliges the Israeli government to facilitate their immigration. " (wiki)
2. Israel demands all, esp. Palestinians, recognize Israel to be a specifically Jewish state. Israel distinguishes between citizenship and nationality - thus an Arab might have Israeli citizenship, but wouldn't have Israeli nationality in the sense that Israel is a specifically Jewish state.
3. "The territories", or "occupied territories", are to some (e.g. to Shira) not Palestinian land but "disputed land". In any event this land has been controlled by the IDF for decades and has been divided into areas A, B, C. According as my reading, some Israeli political parties distinguish this land from Israeli land, but others (e.g. Netanyahu) consider it part of eretz Israel or greater Israel. This situation has been in place for decades and Israeli leaders show no inclination to change beyond steadily annexing more and more land as part of Jewish Israel, to build Jewish settlements (footnote: the term "pastrami sandwich" has been used to describe the intention), the term "apartheid" is appropriate.
4. It is now 67 years since WW2. Palestinian refugees who fled their lands in fear have a more immediate right of return. Of course this is not so in Israeli law, which is racist, but it has been given international recognition in several UN resolutions. That the extended family of an Arab Israeli citizen, which fled the horrors of war and wishes now to return, isn't given that right, whereas a Jew whose family has never seen Israel in perhaps 100 generations or more does have that right, is hard to fit an enlightened moral compass - even though that situation exists today according as racist Israeli laws.

You speak of "Palestinians [giving up] their dream of removing Israel completely", when it is in fact Israel which has actually been removing Palestine from the map and even from the pages of their version of history. It's possible for Israel to change its racist laws and programs, to be equally accommodating to all the indigenous Palestinian people, Jewish, Arab, or whatever. Has it ever entered your mind that perhaps that is all that most non-Jewish Palestinians, Palestinian refugees, really want? I've heard this desire to create a non-racist state to be a "demographic threat", but that just shows that in this case at any rate "demographic threat" is a racist concept.

footnote: “We’ll make a pastrami sandwich of them. We’ll insert a strip of Jewish settlement in between Palestinians, and then another strip of Jewish settlement, right across the West Bank, so that in 25 years time, neither the United Nations, nor the United States, nobody will be able to tear it apart.” Ariel Sharon, 1973