This answer starts with:
The answer is that it depends. What was historical Palestine is now divided into several geographic entities, each with its own jurisdiction and set of laws.
Now, one can certainly view this particular answer, and even the question leading up to it, as pro-Palestine, and implicitly critical of Israel. There was a bit of discussion whether it was a push question, and while I don't agree, I can also see why people would feel that way.
But then a commenter jumps in and comments under the answer:
Downvoting. There is no "historical Palestine." This borders on an attempt to deny Israel's right to exist. There has never been a country called "Palestine." Palestine is a geographic designation. Please, do not engage in genocidal rhetoric on this site. Any calls for destruction of the state of Israel are calls for genocide.
To me, this seems way over the top.
Is saying "historical Palestine" off limit by itself? I totally get that yes, actual denial of the right of Israel to exist would be. And yes, I also totally get that starting out with "historical Palestine" one might start building that kind of argument. That depends what follows, but in this case this was just an isolated statement leading into the wider answer.
Saying "historical Palestine" can also be followed by support for a two state solution and seems, by itself, not indicative of the intents claimed by the commenter.
p.s. Just to be clear: I don't disagree with questioning the nature of Palestine's historical existence. This happens every so often and we can, respectfully, exchange views about it. My question is only whether using the term is in itself off limit and whether accusations of promoting genocide can be considered to be made in good faith.