It also doesn't make much sense in the particular context considering on a genetic level Palestinians are as Semitic as modern Ashkenazi jews. And it doesn't make much sense from a religious stand point because modern Judaism differs from ancient Judaism by about the same amount as Christianity or Islam does. Modern Judaism just has this dogma that Ancient Judaism was secretly observing their form of it even though if we don't take them at their word there isn't a lot of evidence of that.

So from a religious standpoint it doesn't make a lot of sense. And from an ethnic standpoint it makes even less sense.

And also we don't let Europeans say "these are our ethnic lands" without calling them racist. So then why would we let people who are like 2% ethnic ancient jewish retroactively claim ethnic ownership of some land without calling them racist? They will claim it's not about race and about religion. Ok, which is worse, a group of highly militant ethno-nationalists, or a group of highly militant theo-nationalists? Zionists are always one of two bad things and they will use arguments to play wackamole about which one to deflect the claims of one. Apparently if you are two bad things at once and it is unclear if you are both or just one of those things you get unlimited license to be both of those bad things.