Is it really that complex?

1. Religion doesn't give you free license to violently conquer a country in any case.
2. Indigeneity doesn't come from being able to trace an ancestry to a place, nor from having "one's people" as its first inhabitants. This is a conception of indigeneity rooted in property rights that we need to move past. Indigeneity is rather, in effect, defined relationally to settlerdom.
3. Even so, what the Hell would make Zionist Ashkenazim, rather than Palestinians, the heirs of an extinct culture? It can't be either lineage or culture, because by any metric Palestinians are closer to, and modern Jews futher from, Ancient Judea than the Zionist narrative would like.

Its cope. The romans never emptied palestine of peoples, that would be nonsense. Those that weren’t expelled stayed behind and became the modern day Palestinian populace. Ancient judea also wasnt an ethno-state, not everyone there was jewish.

It’s irrelevant. No historical claim to a land justifies genocide or ethnic cleansing.

The historical (oral/religious/textual) and archeological records agree starting with the first diaspora: Babylonians come, cause first diaspora, Persians come and restore judea. Romans come, cause second diaspora. No Jewish polity controls the levant for the next milinium (Khazars* do control the northern caucuses and part of Ukraine tho)

This is the important part, any Jewish states claim to the levant has 1900 years of squatters rights in the way. Before the first diaspora is debated but it (shouldn't) matter