I disagree, but maybe this is just semantics. I’m not a Georgist but their tenants are not bankrupt - land is power and a means of its own. Related, if land belongs to no one then no one has authority over another on what they can do with it, and anti-social forces can exploit the power gap. Ideally it belongs to everyone/everything (ecosystems) in that all uses should be considered and allowed outside of what harms other uses, beyond some kind of reasonable consideration (unfortunate loophole?). So really it should be in the hands of the public, through nations or councils or otherwise. I think we’re on the same page I’m just an obnoxious pedant.

E: a second pedantic thought is to reconsider this not as a support of ethnostates, but as retroactively acknowledging the democratic wishes of oppressed peoples and their ancestors, to try and repatriate their agency in deciding what should happen on the space they primarily used and called home. If we had our ideal situation, much of what has happened would not have happened because it was largely done against their wishes, so mitigating that going forward through land back is one option. But I agree with others it seems this is not being done in good faith. Not sure what other ways exist that can acknowledge wrongdoing without letting bad actors exploit it long term.