To win this argument one needs to understand the difference between a state and an imperial holding. A state is a land that is governed by the people of that land. Whether it is democratic or not makes no difference, a dictator who is from the people of the land he is governing, is running a state. An imperial holding is a land governed by people outside of that land. Whether they are dictatorial or not is immaterial. If the rulers are ruling from another land, it is an imperial holding.
Now, from the fall of the Hasmonean kingdom until 1948, the land of Israel was an Imperial holding. First by the Romans, then the Byzantines, then the Arab Caliphate, then the Crusaders, then the Mamluks, then the Ottomans, then the British. The people who say that the settlers must be removed because the U.N. law says that it is illegal to move civilians into occupied territory are(unbeknowst to them) also saying that all people who were brought in at various times by the Empires that I just listed must be removed as well.
The Fakestinians were for the most part, Arabs from Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Arabia, and Jordan who came looking for work after the Jews began returning and building up the land. But I'm sure that a minority were brought in by the various Empires that I listed. But it doesn't matter, because since they were civilians brought into occupied territory, they must be removed.
Recently when Erez Levanon a wonderful Jew and a resident of Judea was killed, I read talkbacks on the ynet news article from Jews and Gentiles saying that since he was living in "occupied territory", the Arabs had a right to kill him as he was praying to G-d in a forest near his home. The enemies of G-d and the renewal of Jewish Life in Israel have no compuncture about justifying the killing of settlers. We should use their arguments against them and justify the killing of Fakestinians for the same exact reason. That is my two cents. Please tell me your opinion.