This is an interesting point. It's always been part of the negotiation that Israeli settlers won't be allowed to stay in what becomes Palestine, and yet it seems out of the question to expel Arabs from Israel.
which negotiations would those be? the only deal ever offered by israel was under barak's leadership and would have involved only the removal of a handful of settlers and there are now 100k more settlers living in palestinian territory then when that offer was made.
it seems out of the question to expel (more) arabs from israel because there's no equivalence to be made between
people whose ancestors lived in the same villages for 100+ years and
european and american colonists illegally transplanted onto land that
belongs to someone elseYes, I explicitly mentioned the 2000 deal a few times. Note that I didn't say "all Israeli settlers". The settlers that would have stayed would have been part of Israel (otherwise they'd be massacred) and some land was to be swapped to make up the difference.
Based on your last sentence, it sounds like you believe that land belongs to ethnic groups, not individuals. Is the correct? And the way to determine if the land belongs to an ethnic group is to see how many centuries they lived there? If the Israelis hold out for 200 years, would you then agree the land belongs to them?