gershy

I am not an antiabortion crusader. I'm offering what I understand to be the antiabortion position here. By ":(" I wanted to imply "Unfortunately there are seemingly lots of people who seem to hold this view genuinely and very strongly", which was not my greatest moment of clear communication.

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?

Some would argue there are too many harms that occur if antiabortion measures aren't taken :(

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?

(I'm canadian - not israeli.)

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

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?

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

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.)

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.

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.

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"?

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.

Breadth-first discussion is not effective.

Are citizens of israel able to vote for their leadership?

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?

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"?

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)?

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?

Caveman speak make compression not brevity

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?

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)

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

I think this article may have been a lot more insightful if it gave some insight into what product goals were achieved.

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.

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 synagogue; relate to israeli jews in terms of values and religion and desire for a homeland on the mediterranean coast, but would be shocked by, e.g., the middle-eastern-style haggling in israeli markets, the directness of israelis, etc. The judaism is the overlap, otherwise very different.

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?

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

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?

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 jews were uniquely catalyzed 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)

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?

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.