All the racism BS vanishes if you argue with culture instead of genetics.

I don’t think you mean it that way but this sounds very “I don’t see color” coded. Genealogy is the tracing of the descent of a person, family, or group from an ancestor or ancestors. That is also coded into our genes- mine, yours, everyone’s. There’s not inherent racism in that. Not saying that bad actors haven’t tried to twist it but it’s not intrinsically evil.

Also, the culture argument… Native Americans in the US have vastly different cultures. Pueblo and Iroquois don’t share language, artistic expression, construction styles, technology, etc. Their lives were and are vastly different. Tell Sioux and Navajo you think they share a culture. I dare you. They’re not going to agree with you they’re the “same”. But we can agree all of those groups can trace their ancestors back to North America, that is their home, their land.

Palestinians likewise don’t all share a uniform culture. My husband has ancestors from multiple cultural groups including Bedouin. There are also Christian, Muslim and Jewish Palestinians. All of them practice different cultural norms but they all consider themselves Palestinians and they lived together for millennia and even prior to the existence of any of the Abrahamic faiths. There has been ebb and flow and changes in society but a core genetic lineage, demonstrating their continuous presence, has persisted on the land. They’ve just always been there. Like the Ute in Utah or the Māori in New Zealand.

You’re concerned about weaponization of ethnonationalist rhetoric in a context where the power dynamics simply do not support such a concept.

Can you explain that to me? I don't follow.

You seem concerned about the way primarily Europeans have weaponized ethnicity. (Not saying it hasn’t happened elsewhere because it does; we’ve seen it used for other genocides globally.) But, a supremacist ethnonationalist rhetoric used by a State power for oppression is not the same as the nationalism of an oppressed people making an appeal for shared heritage and ties to their homeland to resist erasure and as a tool for basic survival and human rights as an indigenous nation. The power dynamics and motives of those two scenarios are vastly different.

PS — I just realized where this has been posted and it’s probably the incorrect forum for such an in depth conversation. I don’t think it should have been censored but I see the underlying concern and potential inflammatory nature of the discussion if argued in bad faith, which I guess I could see how that may be assumed without full context or knowing OP’s motives for posting. I’m going to leave this response because I spent time on it but probably step down from this discussion because of its location and its potential for devolving into a problematic discussion around a sensitive topic on a forum not initially intended for it.