Jews have had a presence in the area that is today israel/palestine for thousands of years, and jews from the diaspora have been moving to israel/palestine gradually.

I would challenge you to name an initial inciting incident, which you believe was not preceded by or in reaction to an earlier incident. I can almost guarantee you I'll be able to name an inciting event, prior to it (and you will be able to find another one before that, etc.)

Why not? You tell me why committing acts of terrorism against its benefactor country with an ingrate sense as if its your own land not British land is valid or any previous precedent makes it valid? The reason why I don't go thousands of years back eg to Saxons and Vikings is that modern Britain and modern Denmark have long made peace, whereas Israel the state was formed itself as an act of ingratitude and terroristic thievery and is still illicitly expanding to lands clearly not its own.

Would you agree and support a group of people who wanted to immigrate to the United States but the USA decided for whatever reason to deny them immigration/citizenship and these people start bombing, kidnapping and torturing American officials and civilians? If not why is Israel special?

I love discussing this stuff, but I'm not interested in guessing what your non-specific language is referring to; I'll likely silently ignore that stuff.

I generally support israel because:

- I don't think it corresponds to your hypothetical (which I obviously disagree with)

- It was internationally recognized by the UN, and I find the collective jewish effort put towards nation-building to be legitimizing

- I support a jewish state, and I think jews, including those from the diaspora (based on genetic tests - dietary preferences are irrelevant to me), are indigenous to roughly the territory of modern-day israel

- It is a decently functioning democracy with human rights

- I think its war efforts are usually justified

I'm sure you disagree with all of these ^ and it's better to avoid a breadth-first conversation. I assume you've conceded that "X did it to Y, therefore it's fine for Y to do it to X" is not a functional model here. The ball is in your court.

What is vague about what I said? I am talking about how Israelis repaid Britain back for fighting the nazis and then granting them a parcel of British owned land completely free by violent terroristic attacks on British officers and civilians. History may trace back centuries, but what history of wrong doings did the British have with European white jews that they started terrorizing the Brits? It shows just how insane the level of ingratitude and entitlement was in this group that they behaved as if its their own owned land they are entitled to and not a gift given out of pure generosity. I think its fair for Britain to have retaliated with extreme violence against these immoral crimes. Its a shame Britain had lost the political will for these actions due to WW2. Which is why I asked, would you be fine with some people who were denied immigration to the USA launching a terror campaign of bombings and violence against the USA? That's what Israelis did during the 40s.

International recognition of Israel is a point you should be careful with. Just as Israel was formed with violent illicit methods but accepted by the UN later, the reverse could as well happen and "illicitly" retaken Israel will in time be recognized by the UN.

I do not support ethnic or religious states, but it's fine, many disagree. They could have gone anywhere they wanted, as long as it was legal immigration with consent of those already living there.

Explain me again how if these white jews were supposedly so deeply culturally connected to the place, they were whining about lack of European food and had to reverse engineer local food from native Arabs and Jews living there? Do you think eg if I had a scottish great great great grandfather and I lived in America all life, I'd suddenly unlock some knowledge of scottish culture hidden inside my blood somehow? And does it grant me rights to carve out a parcel of Scotland for myself forcing out locals violently against their wishes? The question can also be flipped, if it is just for Israel to kick out people from their so called ancestral home, then I believe it is perfectly justified for eg France or Netherlands to kick out jews living there as it is not their ancestral land and it is the just home of the French or Dutch peoples.

>- It is a decently functioning democracy with human rights

Meaningless if it is not justifiably their land and property. Its the opposite of democracy, its a violation of property rights.

>- I think its war efforts are usually justified

Do you think the present Lebensraum campaign is also justified?

Breadth-first discussion is not effective.

It's easy to argue jews terrorized the british to reclaim their indigenous land, i.e the british had no right to jurisdiction there in the 1st place. Your analogy of denied US immigrants is different if it turns out the US was their original land they were displaced from, they all genetically trace back to it, there has consistently been a presence of that people living there, that people's artifacts are buried under the ground throughout the land, etc etc - no?

The British had perfect rights to that place, both legally, and I would say practically and morally. I am not personally black and white against colonialism as a concept anyways if they were better administrators than the natives. Many places in Africa, and yes Israel/Palestine itself would have been much better if it was British. (Even considering their blunder of promising the land to multiple groups, the aftermath would have been much better managed by them.)

Let me find that one patch of Africa where human life originated then. We should all have a right to that place.

What's so special about the value of 2000 years or whatever number Israel prefers? Why not 4000 years and therefore Babylonians/Iraqis? There is no naturalistic or scientific significance to the value selected by Israel. Let us take Israelis like Netenyahu back to their real homeland, the Steppes of Ukraine. A big portion of Israel trace their genetic origin there, their peoples artifacts are buried in Ukraine, etc etc.

Why do you not protest in support of British people of Norman ancestry forcibly taking over France?

The british withdrew from the palestinian mandate under economic and insurgent pressure.

The land which is modern day israel/palestine is the only historically jewish land; if not that land there is no other. The connection between jews, and the land which was judea, is very strong - even after thousands of years jews have a powerful cultural desire to to inhabit that native land, to enact nation-building there, and to defend it.

I feel sorry for normans who feel displaced from what is currently french land - it seems they lack either the passion or ability to return, unlike jews vis-a-vis israel (although to be fair jews were catalyzed to an unusual degree by the holocaust).

Does that make sense and address what you were saying?

(Netanyahu would genetically test as levantine descent, not ukrainian steppe - ashkenazis have consistently avoided assimilation and the connection to the levant remains; as a person he also culturally resembles an ashkenazi jew, not a ukrainian)

Why? Why what's special about 2000 years? Why not 100000 years? Why aren't jews protesting to return to the whatever patch of Africa everyone came out of? And why should not other countries that are hosting jews right now deport them saying its the ancestral land of natives not for jews? If we are to accept Israel's framing, then we must accept these too. Britain should kick out normans and danish blood people. American natives should kick out any white persons, etc etc.

Are you sure about netanyahu? How can you say that about a clearly polish looking person without dna test results? What percentage of his dna is Levantine? If it is 10% Levantine and 90% Steppe why is it not laughed out the room if he claims the extreme minority portion of his dna as his primary identity?

This argument works both ways.

Netanyahu was born in Tel Aviv. You think he is “illegal” in Israel because of his DNA?

He is a second generation illegal immigrant of course. I am not making any DNA arguments, I don't support ethnostates. That's Israel's argument, and by Israel's argument, I believe it should be completely justified to deport jews from other countries, since purportedly all jews are genetically and culturally Israeli, and its not proper for a person to have dual loyalties in terms of the countries they are loyal to.

"All jews are culturally israeli" is an extremely ignorant statement.

You were the one repeatedly saying all jews have some sort of magic connection to Israel. If I misread and you meant Israelis have a connection to that land, that still begs the question. Not everyone purportedly "Israeli" made the transition there and the question still remains valid, more concretely to people with dual citizenships.

Israeli culture is roughly jewish + middle-eastern culture. American jews have jewish + american culture. American jews would find they read the exact same prayers as israeli jews, can immediately feel comfortable in synagoge; relate to israeli jews in terms of values and religion, but would be shocked by, e.g., the middle-eastern-style haggling in israel markets, the directness of israelis, etc. The judaism is the overlap, otherwise very different.

Yes without doubt, obviously a person from NY would have a different culture than a person from Haifa or whatever. I think I misread you on that.

His family migrated legally in 1920.

You are making a straw-man argument about Israel, which is 20% Arab and is not calling for them to be deported. The “dual loyalties” bit is something you got out of your side’s trope archive.

If his family immigrated in 1920, then its probably fine, they should probably have legal land ownership deeds from the British government.

Why, what is a trope about that? Dual loyalties is a valid question to ask any immigrant or person who declares himself to have his other or real home elsewhere. Which many (not all) jews often do with regard to Israel. Its the same for Chinese, Indians, Nigerians or any other group.

Dual nationals or people who feel loyalty to Israel should of course have the freedom of speech like anyone else to say they feel affinity toward any country. But the test I use to answer this question is, should their country launch a war against Israel, which side will they fight for?

>The “dual loyalties” bit is something you got out of your side’s trope archive.

That's a very pleasant accusation of course. What "side" do you think mine is?

Judea is central to jewish ethnogenesis. That's ~3000 years ago, not 100000.

Netanyahu is an ashkenazi jew. We know who his parents, grandparents, etc are - he's also claimed to have taken a genetic test, which registered him as primarily ashkenazi. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

Why? Why 3000? Smells like a rationalization for a convenient number. There is no natural or scientific reason 3000 is special. That's an arbitrary self defined point they like to use. Yes, he is a second gen Polish immigrant. Its not his generation itself that is criminal by itself (though of course Netanhayhu is plenty criminal) but the original ingrate europeans who launched a series of vile terror attacks against British people to capture land that was never theirs and drive out those already living there and those with legal ownership of the land.

3000 as that is the age of judea, the state central to jewish ethnogenesis.

Netanyahu is an ashkenazi jew. His family traces back to ukraine and lithuania, where it remained jewish; unassimilated. Trace ancestors back further, and you will get to judea. The culture in judea provides a lens which very strongly helps to explain who netanyahu is today. If you trace back earlier than judea to e.g. canaanites, you will lose any useful lens for understanding jews today. This is why judea is not an arbitrary point in the timeline; it is the center of jewish ethnogenesis. Does that make sense?

Yes and I am saying there is no naturalistic or scientific meaning to 3000. Its a number of selfish convenience. Israelis may try to say it is special, but it has no meaning to others.

The number is completely secondary - the significant thing is the location of the birthplace of the people/nation - that's what tells you who is indigenous to which land.

I assume you concede that there is a perfectly valid reason for jews to be interested in the land that is roughly modern day israel/palestine, i.e. it is the place where jews originated.

No, why would it, they are "native" only if we pick this date, if we pick a different date they are native elsewhere. I can ask you likewise if you think its agreeable for a deported immigrant to begin terror attacks against the USA for that's how Israel began. Either you have legal rights to the land, or permission from those already living there or you don't. I don't care if its Chinese, Jewish, Somali, Indian. In my "dream scenario" Israel's land is relitigated. Those found to have valid purchases matching any in the last government (British or Ottoman) may stay. The rest are given a sum of money and a arrangement for immigration anywhere they wish. The remainder land is put into some kind of military trust and sold off via auctions to anyone in the world.

(This arrangement applies to only persons who are innocent victims ie born in Israel and saved up money to buy some property or inherited any. To these persons a sum deemed equivalent to the price of the property will be provided. To illegal settlers, nothing should be provided. Suitable criminal proceedings and punishment should occur for them.)

Jewish ethnogenesis occurred in ancient israel plus judea. Yes or no?

If jews want an ethnostate, then its valid for others also to want an ethnostate and boot out the foreign jews, yes or no? The answer is tied for both.

I could just as much find the people with genetics tracing to that region who are Muslims and Christians today. And if I manage to muster a number larger than those fraction of Israeli jews with genetic roots there, what would you say?

If I am 1% Native American and 99% English, what am I? Native or English?

There are two points here: 1. Do jews have an arbitrary or valid interest in israel/palestine? 2. Do other peoples have a valid, nonzero amount of interest in the same land?

On #1 we seem to agree - of course the jewish interest in their indigenous land (the land of jewish ethnogenesis) is valid.

And of course the answer to #2 is a clear "yes". If muslim passion for and capability to seize israel increased sufficiently, it could of course become a muslim state. It seems we entirely agree here, and you return to this point most often - but it's also a completely moot point as it applies evenly to all parties - isn't it?

Jews have a unique claim to israel - they're the only people existing today which tightly trace their ethnogenesis to that region. Can you name another? (E.g. not palestinians - their ethnogenesis is strongly linked to islam / arabia.)

(If we agree here, which I think we do, I'd love to discuss your "relitigation of israel" idea because I think it's interesting and bananas)

The answer to both questions is I cannot place any comment without reading suitable genetic literature.

Your response to #2 confuses two different things. I made that statement in relation to moral justification for who owns the state per your standards. It is quite unrelated to the quite practical matter of who captures it, owns it. It is also "moot" morally as well since 3000 year old genetics are moot to legal status and ownership of the land, whether the person with genes going back there is Muslim, Christian or Jew. I do not believe in ethnostates.

My idealistic plan is what I came after some thought toward a just and fair solution as possible to all parties involved. The freed up land such as those evicted for lack of legal documents and the remainder of unallocated government land of the former Israeli government should of course be available to any person in the world with the suitable money and paperwork to buy property. In time this can become a new country but it should be administered by an international military force meanwhile. Ideally this should have been the unbroken rule of the British colonial government itself, but history is what it is.

You say you don't understand "the literature" well enough to know if jews have a valid claim to israel, but when you describe early jewish zionists as "ingrates" it seems like you're saying you do understand, and have concluded there is no valid claim. Am I mistaken? Would you concede that your use of the label "ingrate" was perhaps unreasonable? What level of gratitude vs entitlement should indigenous populations manifest towards living on their own indigenous land?

Have you searched "are jews indigenous to israel?", and did you find any interesting information? Would you like me to recommend some sources on the subject which are not blatantly pro-jewish?

Of course not. What happened 3000 years ago is hardly relevant to property rights and legal matters 80 years ago. If someone traces their genes to that area, that might help of course, he might be able to produce an unbroken series of valid inheritances, entails, etc proving that each ancestor is indeed their direct ancestor and that the inheritance claim is valid. If one can show a valid unbroken chain of land transfers from 3000 years ago till now, then 3000 has a significance, otherwise it has zero significance to the principles of law. As of yet, I am not aware of any such offers. The genetic origins of "Jews" or "lebanese" or anyone else is an interesting anthropological and academic topic that has no bearing to property rights. You are forgetting and I must again remind you that I do not believe in ethnostates and even if I took that assumption for granted, 3000 is far past any sane statute of limitations. I do not care about "indigenous", if a person from Canada with gaulish lineage is denied citizenship to France, then he has no right to commit terror acts against France.

Any non-convert jew (the vast majority of jews are non-converts) will have a lineage going back to ancient israel / judea.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "don't believe in ethnostates"? Are you saying that you personally would never attempt to start one? That you don't like when others engage in building ethnostates? That you would, if you had the power, deny others the right to do so?

Absolutely yes to the first two, including "Chinese", "Japanese", "Somali" or any other existing ethnostates, nothing special about Israel. But what's done is done, a persons private property/a justified governments belief of what people are allowed to buy or not is a more important thing. As for the third, yes I would prevent by any non-violent means possible should there be an attempt to launch a new ethnostate. If there is already a conflict, I will materially support the side that isn't an ethnostate. Iranians wanting to reinstate some stupid king is not something I support, if you just wanted a dictatorship you already live under one and I see no point in the bloodshed and human loss to change to yet another. I do not support druze or any other racialist splinter state movements. I would fully support any movement that wants a capitalist and democratic secular Iran. Nothing special or complicated really. A jew or lebanese tracing dna back there is a curious academic fact, just as the fact that they both also trace dna back to some spot in African further ago. Neither of these facts affect any matters in property rights or contracts.

What right/justification do you have to prevent people from organizing on any basis they determine is important to them (so long as they aren't unjustifiably harming others in the process)?

On similar lines of reasoning I would oppose the organizing of a communist or nazi government, it might or might not be non-harmful today but it is laying the seeds for harm. How many times have you heard people inciting war over a specific race or nation? Why shouldn't I support or prevent any kinds of organizations I want? However for Israel, the main reason for the bitterness is the blatant thievery of others land and continual blatant violations of property rights and murders. You said you feel Israel is justified in their actions. Justify the settler expansions then.

It sounds like you don't specifically oppose ethnostates, but rather more broadly, any state which contains "the seeds of harm". What test do you use to determine whether or not a state has "the seeds of harm"?

Communism, nazism and nationalism are proven time and again to cause mass death and destruction. Why engage in the stupidity of trying these faulty systems again and again? Nationalism is tied to and depends on ethnic composition existing in a state. Its much harder to induce nationalism in a mixed population.

With israel of course we don't even need to come to such theoretical matters, as the entity was founded by vile terroristic attacks against the very country that granted it the land and naked robbery of others property and it continues today to rob others lands and thus the valid and just response is to shoot the invaders and thieves until they desist as is the right of any property owner to do to a intruder that threatens their life.

You said before you feel Israels actions are justified, so I am asking again, justify the illegal settlers. If not then I hope you have no problem with the land owners engaging in valid self defense.

I'm interested in your very general stance ("seeds of harm") as I suspect it either classifies too many or too few states as undesirable, but I want to let you push your questions too.

No sane (and non-ideological) person will defend israel at every turn. I want to avoid answering your question with a question but I also want to make sure we're talking about the same thing - whose land would you argue israel is settling?

Yes the classification of what is deemed soundly harmful to be allowed to exist goes on a false negative basis as would any such sane assessment be. I do not try to predict the future of every possible system, but it is quite clear some systems are always disastrous.

The people already living there under Ottoman and British rule obviously with suitable legal arrangements deemed agreeable by the former governments. The terroristic appropriation of British administered land just a few decades ago is of course not something anyone of a calm mind would deem as valid so by necessity claims of validity must trace from previous governments. Obviously if it were say a few centuries ago it'd have been not a matter worth doing anything about, time matters. And right now, further other peoples legal lands too, which settlers come at gunpoint and rob. Your state supports the illicit settlers viz the current ongoing expansions by technically non-state actors, quite aside from the state itself being an illicit settlement of course.

I think there are plenty of ethnostates that function well internally, and do little unjustifiable harm to others.

So your question is "how to justify the movement of newcomers into the midst of former residents of british palestine and the ottoman empire"? The obvious initial answer - and I'm sure you'll have a pointed followup which I look forward to and will likely cause me to disavow israel in various ways - is that the lack of any state apparatus there (due to disintegration of the ottomans and withdrawal of the british) creates an environment in which there is a lack of formal resistance to the construction of a new state.

Essentially territory that is unencompassed by anything strongly resembling a state is a favourable place to construct a state.

Why the british withdrew is closely connected as the Israeli/Zionist continuous terroristic attacks against the British and clamping down the Israeli/Arab terrorist factions warring is what was the final straw that broke the camel's back of a country already weakened by WW2. The fact of a place lacking a formal military I hope doesn't make it legal or okay by the some entity to violate their property rights, for the same could be said equally either way for Israeli illegal settlement expansions, for if there is no clear state system there, what's the objection against shooting down the squatters? (Even with a real state existing some countries have things like the Castle doctrine of course, which gives a full legal justification to shoot down the Israeli squatters). The real question that must be answered is if the locals are okay with you arriving, if you came in and legally purchased property or were granted some parcels of land with agreement by the locals, neither of which of course occurred during the violent establishment of Israel. The question of property and territory is very ancient and predates even humans, even animals have a sense of territory. So if you do not respect the existing legal claims by the British or Ottoman governments or claims by precedent of living, then you should be justly treated as an illegal invader. It is a very high degree of naked ingratitude to complain and start attacks against the Brits for controlling their own border and restricting immigration to their own lands, behaving as if these random Poles and Russians literally own the place. Would you support random Poles or Russians performing terrorist attacks against America if the USA instituted a strong and limited immigration quota upon them? Because that's what happened in the region of Israel back then. I completely understand the Holocaust but that gives a person no right to go ahead and rob at gunpoint an unrelated entity's land, moreover launching attacks against a country that bled so much fighting against nazis.

You're branching off in a lot of directions. Is there a specific point you'd like to focus on? Do you agree "territory unencompassed by anything strongly resembling a state is a favourable place to construct a state"?

Absolutely not, unless the region is completely empty of people or land ownerships. Otherwise state or no, the stakeholders have the justified right to self defense. I am not going in many directions, it's all the same thing. If one does not have a right to a land and try to force yourself onto it, then the stakeholders of that land have a legal right to shoot them dead. Whether its killing the illegal settlers taking over peoples lands today or for the entire illictly formed state itself to be dismantled and the properties restores to the just and rightful owners.

I don't understand how you can disagree that generally, "territory unencompassed by anything strongly resembling a state is a favourable place to construct a state". Surely you don't agree with its negation?? I'm guessing you meant to say that you do agree in general, but in israel's specific case you have a list of "grievances" which, in sum, outweigh this general principle?

If that's correct, then it sounds like your grievances are (1) the builders of israel used terror against the british and were ungrateful to them (2) local arabs were opposed to the construction of the state of israel (3) since the construction of israel, the rights of arabs there have been impacted (4) the territory of israel was not fully purchased from some other entity (5) the right of diaspora jews to return to the land of their ethnogenesis "expired" over the course of ~3000 years (6) you don't support ethnostates.

I want to understand if this is a nearly exhaustive list, and I would like to know the nature of how these points sum together in such a way that opposes you to israel: e.g., is there any single point that alone would maintain your opposition to israel? (Imagine you somehow changed your mind on all points but one of them at random - is there any chance you still remain opposed to israel?) Is there any single point on which your entire opposition to israel hinges? (Imagine you somehow changed your mind on just one random point - is there a non-zero chance you now generally support israel?) Understanding how these grievances sum together will let us know which points are worth discussing, and will give a nice sense of the scope of our disagreement.

Where in anything I wrote do you see me applying special rules to Israel? The very previous reply I wrote is completely general. If "Americans" were colonizing the natives today, then I'd support supplying the natives a nuclear program, fighter jets, tanks, guns, etc. You seem to have difficulties understanding an extremely simple and clearly stated point: no, a region lacking a formal state absolutely does NOT make it suitable for the construction of a new state UNLESS IT IS DEVOID OF PEOPLES OR EXISTING LAND CLAIMS AND OR THE PEOPLE LIVING THERE PROVIDE AGREEMENT TO THE SAME. This applies to Israel, America, Japan, China, anyone else.

Why 3000 years? I go back further. Restore Inanna, Baal, Ishtaar, Set, Osiris. Return the levant to the original civilizations and their descendants.

Unfortunately none of the points you quoted are negotiable in isolation, Israel was a very recent false creation and the best solution after much thinking I have come up with is indeed relitigating all land claims to the last government ie British or Ottoman and the points regarding innocent victims vs invaders. Obviously this also means "Israel" must either willingly accept these terms or be subjected to a continued campaign of repelling by the true stakeholders and suitable international military force first, both of which are completely justified under most reasonable interpretations of property and land ownership.

Would you argue that most states worldwide are false/invalid and should be relitigated? (As just about all of them were constructed in areas containing prior people, and against the will of some of those people.)

No, as I had said before, timing maters. Fresh wounds still bleed. Centuries or millennia old ones are too late to be reconsidered. Past crimes cannot be changed but current crime can and should be fought. Eg if the people of Hong Kong want a greater independence from China, I'd fully support that. But english fighting normans is too late.

So we just need to wait, and you'll reverse your stance on israel?

Yes, whoever manages to keep it stably for 200 years or so. The ones that manage to do so might name it Qin Shang for all we know.

That's a remarkable position, thanks for being honest about it. So israel is currently pursuing what is in your eyes the only possible route to legitimacy - i.e., maintaining ownership while the ~200-year clock counts down?

Past crimes being hard or impossible to prosecute doesn't mean current crimes can't be prosecuted. Israel is illegal today and today it is just and moral to do everything possible to repel them. I would have supplied Natives with fighter jets if they were being invaded by "Americans" today. If some entity manages to keep it for 200 years without trouble, then I'd consider it a legal state. And that entity might as well call it Qin Shang or Provincia del Levante or anything else.

This is of course distinct from the mere practical fact of some entity owning some place. Russia currently owns places that are justifiably Ukrainian property but it doesn't make its ownership claims valid. If it can keep on to it for a few centuries stably which is to say without internal threads to break off or constant barrages of freedom fighters haven't existed for 200 years and people legitimately identify as Russian, then it is Russia. Otherwise it is not, and I support arming and aiding Ukrainians to repel the invaders.

I believe we must help Iran, Lebanon, etc build nukes. This will have the added benefit of the gulf arab countries being forced to build nukes and Israel's mindless hyperviolence having a degree of checks and balances put upon it.

Let me ask you a question now, you said you don't agree with everything your government does. Would you disagree with shooting illegal settlers who are right now robbing others lands? Why or why not?

(I'm canadian - not israeli.)

"Would you disagree with shooting illegal settlers who are right now robbing others lands?" Who is doing the shooting?

The rightful property owners shooting for defending themselves from the violent robber of course.

Outside of states there is no law - only survival. I would expect stateless people to use force to preserve and increase their resources, and I would of course do so myself in such a situation. I'm not sure if the concept of private ownership exists without a sovereign state to enforce laws. I could "support" or "oppose" either side, but if that's just in terms of emotivism there is no authority to sway with my emotions, and it therefore seems moot (in such a scenario I likely wouldn't ever even consider such things, as such considerations would be inapplicable and meaningless). I could also support or oppose by contributing force, in which case I would be doing so in terms of my own survival, with ethical/legal perspectives/judgement remaining inapplicable. Does that make sense? What do you think?

If it were something completely alien like remote tribes then the property rights concepts would need some bridging, but the Levant has had traditional governments for centuries, so in that case I think the fact that it went through a period of instability does not negate that people, including in living memory had legal documentation and ownership deeds to a valid government. In my view, claims should thus pass to the last legitimate government if the time period has been so short. Again I should make it clear I am speaking independent of the fact of who has more firepower right now, ie the legally just solution would be repelling the invaders.

And if none of the previous legitimate sovereign authorities of that territory are interested to administer its present-day property rights claims? The people of that land are effectively stateless, no?

Again, I should clarify that I am speaking of the justification not the practical reality which is where at present whoever has more firepower will manage to own the place. Even if no previous state is interested in it, it does not just make the land free for all morally and justly. It also applies to the houses of Jews that were stolen at end of WW2, it is recent enough I believe it should be restored and any present owner should be compensated and let out.

Justice (justification) and practical reality are fundamentally linked.

If no previous state is interested, the land stateless - correct?

As I said the practical reality of who has more firepower is a different issue. It might as well be China who owns that patch of land 50 years from now for all we know.

I'm losing your overall point. You imply indifference when you say "it might as well be china".

My followup would be, "you don't seem indifferent about israel"

Then I would expect you to say, "well israel is particularly illegal"

And I would say, "how, particularly?"

And it seems you'd say "israel is illegally invading the west bank"

So I would say, "whose sovereign territory is it invading?"

And you would say "that of the former ottoman and/or british empire"

And I'd say "then the west bank has no sovereign authority; those you listed have exited"

Is that a fair portrayal of how our perspectives line up? To me, this establishes that specific reason for opposing israel is invalid. If you still feel opposed to israel there are plenty of other reasons you could find - but this specific reason is invalid, isn't it?

Yes, China will also be a colonial power in this case. And as I have said before, I have no issues with colonialism itself. China will be a far better steward of this shithole of a mess as it has no emotions toward any party and is very business oriented.

Israel is illegal simply because it in very recent and active memory illicitly terrorized Britain and stole British land illegally through vile extreme terrorism and ungrateful torture of its very benefactor's people.

A present state structure existing or not is irrelevant if people are already living there, that land has no valid legal deeds from Israel and they are invading others property. Where even is Israel? Israel hates defining its map, which conveniently seems to always expand to where people are already living, against their wishes. Even if we accept the Israeli government as valid, where are the definitions of its borders and the land grant slips for these acts of robbery? If you feel that region is stateless, and since you have presented no objection as of yet to Israeli squatters killing and displacing the people living there, I would hope you can say you are just as much okay with the locals repelling and killing the invaders. Since it is after all neutral grounds.

Due to the state policies and culture, the region has birthed (I say with no ill will toward them beyond the usual disgust one has for a criminal element committing murder and property crime) a distorted populace of a culture of thievery and ungratefulness, forever thieving, forever ungrateful, forever lying. Through obviously no fault of race or blood, rather the filtering effect of the governance system and culture created by a formerly traumatized group in WW2. For instance the eagerness to accept any person of Jewish descent as immigrant leads to, as an unwanted side effect, criminals of all stripes fleeing to Israel and then lawyers pausing or preventing their extradition for years. A sense of unearned right to other peoples lands and properties, starting from the vile reaction to Britain itself closing the borders and changing the immigration policy of land that it literally owns, behaving as if its their own land. Nazi Germany was deprogrammable without too much effort as it was only a few years. This problem has been going on for a few generations already and is going to take immense effort to deprogram back to normalcy.

The squatters invading and stealing others lands are of course widely documented, loutish teens with the support of some IDF member entering and robbing someones house or farm. This is part of the same history and culture of ungratefulness and sense that everything belongs to them.

Israel is physically immune to being displaced, and there is good reason to think it would be a fine western-style steward when not under duress. Even israeli jewish radicalism has historically been far less prevalent in peacetime.

On the settler accusation, we still haven't fleshed out the nature of property rights outside of any state. Without coming to an understanding here we have no framework in which to judge israel's "settler" activity. (Note I fully understand and accept stateless people's use of physical force to preserve and enrich themselves.)

I am aligned with and equally upset by your "immigrate and delay extradition" concerns.

Breadth-first discussion is not effective, and I'd like to focus on the significant remaining objection I see from you: this matter of ingratitude towards the british. I think this is a lazy or naive characterization - e.g. the british installed a hitler ally as the negotiating partner of zionist leadership in ~1920. What do jews owe britain?

Israel is immune as of yet due to parasitizing off western countries like Germany and USA. There is no reason to think they won't be much weakened if that support evaporates. It cannot be a "Western" steward if it violates the most fundamental principle of capitalism and western government viz property rights. Therefore again, my ideal and most just solution would be all land declared void and any people with valid inheritances and land papers from British government era allowed to stay and so on.

Its not breadth first, thats the very lineage that turned this country into a distorted culture of congenital ingrates. They don't have to owe Brits anything, Britain owned the land, they disliked British immigration controls and then behaved as if they own the land and started vile terroristic activities against the country that saved their side in WW2.

Why not? If you think the houses settlers are invading are "Israeli" then define Israels strict borders? Israel never defines its borders, its always changing based on whims. Obviously they have no legal papers for the lands they are stealing, they are making shit up as they go along. Therefore I think, it is necessary given Israel's weak and confused memory regarding their land borders to be given a very good, kinetic reminder as to their precise border lines.

Britain or anyone else could install literal Hitler or Stalin for all I care, this changes nothing about the fact that they rightfully own a given parcel of land.

Israel is a nuclear power; it can't really be displaced.

It sounds like the terms "ingratitude" / "ingrate" are not relevant to your stance and are just emotive distractions; I suggest we avoid those terms.

Israel has a bunch of contested borders with varying levels of international recognition.

Britain displaced the ottomans, and it seems you feel they had a valid claim to the previously ottoman lands. Then jews displaced the british - why, to you, does that same validity not apply here?

I have said it before, time. No sane Brit is trying to expel Normans and their descendants back to France. Israeli criminal robbery of others land literally happened in literal living memory. The same way South African crimes are still an active issue. Ingratitude is the only possible term when a group begins launching terrorist attacks on a country freely opening up its own lands for immigration to it and then imposing some natural immigration controls.

Why is Israel trying to expand into Lebanon? What claims does it have there? Israel's statements are all bullshit, it never owned any of these lands and stole them from the Brits and now stealing from Palestinians, Lebanese and soon by their own admission Syrians and Turks too.

- I assume you agree israel can't be physically displaced

- I assume you agree that as britain's displacement of the ottomans was valid, so too is the jewish terrorist/renegade displacement of britain

- I assume you agree britain was not acting altruistically, given its installation of a hitler ally as the jewish partner in diplomacy

From the jewish perspective, britain allowing jews access to their own homeland is not an act meriting a response of gratitude.

The remaining concern is regarding expulsion - I'd rather discuss this directly and not by analogy. Is there a particular large-scale instance of israel expelling some people which you feel is particularly unjustifiable?

Also, would you be interested to continue this conversation by phone or video call? We've been at this for more than a month now and I admire your respectfulness and tenacity and perspective, and I think we could get to the core of our disagreement more quickly in realtime. If you were interested I'd post my email here and we could exchange contact details!

No I am fine with text and on here.

Positive? I come off very robotic in text but I'm friendly in person! Realtime is much more effective for this kind of stuff.

Saying Israel is a “functioning democracy with human rights” is not a truthful statement.

First, Israel still has no single written constitution and instead operates through Basic Laws, something its own parliament acknowledges. So, not a democracy.

Second, Israel was established through armed Zionist paramilitary groups conducting terror campaigns. Look up the Irgun and Lehi, both of which carried out bombings and other attacks that were described as terrorism by contemporary governments and organizations.

Third, the claim that it “has human rights” is impossible to square with reality. Israel maintains a decades-long military occupation of the West Bank, where Palestinians live under military law while Israeli settlers living in the same territory are governed by Israeli civilian law. Human rights organizations document torture and abuse in Israeli detention facilities holding Palestinians. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch published extensive reports documenting systematic violations of Palestinians’ rights. both organizations completely reject the characterization of Israel as a state that upholds human rights. What evidence are you prepared to put forward that Israel “has human rights” in the face of the evidence that its human rights are reserved for one class of people?

Breadth-first discussion is not effective.

Are citizens of israel able to vote for their leadership?

Party, yes. Leader, No. Individual representative, No.

And, of course, not everyone in the Israeli-occupied territories has suffrage.

If your objections are that parties are elected rather than leaders, and that non-israelis can't vote, it sounds like you are straining very hard to deny that israel is a democracy.

Someone with continuous presence and cultural ties to the place wouldn't be cooking European dishes there and having trouble adapting to local cuisine to the point of having to reverse engineer food from locals for instance.