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