I dunno, I don't really think that post is where it's at. It's absurd to frame land acknowledgments as equivalent to a call for ethnic cleansing, or to ignore the differences between colonization and previous territorial changes among indigenous groups. And it feels like the same logic in that post against "decolonization" would suggest that ending apartheid in South Africa or the creation of Nunavut would have required massacring or expelling all white people. And then it circles around by saying giving additional land to tribal governments might be a good thing, so it feels like it's just creating a strawman of the landback movement and but not actually particularly disagreeing with it? I'm not aware of any actual USA decolonization or landback organization that has a stated position of expelling or subjugating white people, and plenty have explicitly addressed this (e.g. https://www.hcn.org/issues/54-9/indigenous-affairs-social-justice-questions-about-the-landback-movement-answered/ or https://zen-catgirl.medium.com/is-decolonization-genocide-lets-see-de91184cb8af). And I don't think assuming a free Palestine would inherently be an ethnonationalist state is reasonable either. Conflating landback and decolonization with ethnonationalism seems highly problematic.