This analogy doesn’t work for several reasons:

1. The Spanish speaking Mexicans were never expelled from parts of California and Texas. So there is no right of return applicable.

2. The Spanish speaking Mexicans were also on stolen lands which they had acquired within a few generations. So in your analogy, the native American Indians would be akin to Palestine, and the Spanish speaking Mexicans would be Israel. The USA would be a third invasion force taking lands from both Israel and Palestine.

3. Even if we concentrate on native American Indian lands, they still hold equal citizenship and equal rights within Texas, California, or anywhere inside the USA. The thing they are missing is their ownership of the lands which was stolen from them. Palestinians are missing a lot more. But this analogy could hold if it was still 1890.

4. A more applicable analogy would be the Japanese Americans which were expelled from their homes on the West Coast during WW2. However, they were given the right of return within a few years and even reparations in the 1980s.

This matches what I've seen from Israelis, but the issue is that the rest of the world does think this is the best way forward. Support in the west is very generational and supporting Zionism will be politically lethal within 20 years. I don't see how Israel could keep an ethno-state intact without support from western allies. There's great pressure on Israel now to stop the war without having achieved any strategic victories. Repeated Oct 7th like events seem inevitable until Israelis face the reality of the situation and secularize.

Also for the record, I fully support reparations to indigenous and Black Americans, so yes, my view is consistent.