gershy

Completely agreed

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

- 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?

I guess github is kind of a shared garden. Interesting that, like in game theory, if everyone is using it too much, no one gets to use it.

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!

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?

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?

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?

Justice (justification) and practical reality are fundamentally linked.

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

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?