[gershy]

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.)

[hardbass]

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?

[gershy]

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.

[cog-flex]

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?

[gershy]

Breadth-first discussion is not effective.

Are citizens of israel able to vote for their leadership?

[defrost]

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

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

[gershy]

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.

[hardbass]

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?

[gershy]

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?

[hardbass]

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?

[gershy]

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)

[hardbass]

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.