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.