I'm not sure this is the mic drop you think it is, since what you're pushing back on here is the idea that Palestinians living in Israel should be allowed to simultaneously remain in their homes and have full political rights and agency. Which of those two things do you disagree with?

You're excluding the middle a lot in these comments, suggesting that the only two valid perspectives on this conflict are "Israel must be an exclusionary ethnostate" and "Hamas is a legitimate actor". It's possible to disagree with both of those statements. People who stick up for Hamas are dumb. Ethnostates are immoral.

There’s nothing immoral about ethnostates. Not every country needs to be a multiethnic democracy like the US. I agree certain human rights must be respected, but there’s nothing wrong with Israel being structured as a homeland for Jews. To assert otherwise is to elevate notions of non-discrimination above the right to self-determination. My parents’ generation fought a war with Pakistan to have a home for Bangladeshis. (The ethnic group is in the name of the country!) If there was any risk of Bangladeshis losing political control of the country, they’d be entirely within their rights to prevent that.

>Ethnostates are immoral.

Following this logic you may also believe families are immoral.

In fact I do not.

End of Israel _as an entho-state_, which is not necessarily end of Israel as a state.

If Nazi Germany could turn into regular Germany, one of the most progressive nations on Earth, so can anyone else.

> If Nazi Germany could turn into regular Germany,

It didn’t, really; it was destroyed, and the destroyers erected states of their own design on its ruins.

Israel hasn’t picked fights with the right people for it to end up the way Nazi Germany did if it loses.

Israel is an ethnostate. Ending that would mean it’s not Israel.