[hardbass]

No, why would it, they are "native" only if we pick this date, if we pick a different date they are native elsewhere. I can ask you likewise if you think its agreeable for a deported immigrant to begin terror attacks against the USA for that's how Israel began. Either you have legal rights to the land, or permission from those already living there or you don't. I don't care if its Chinese, Jewish, Somali, Indian. In my "dream scenario" Israel's land is relitigated. Those found to have valid purchases matching any in the last government (British or Ottoman) may stay. The rest are given a sum of money and a arrangement for immigration anywhere they wish. The remainder land is put into some kind of military trust and sold off via auctions to anyone in the world.

[hardbass]

(This arrangement applies to only persons who are innocent victims ie born in Israel and saved up money to buy some property or inherited any. To these persons a sum deemed equivalent to the price of the property will be provided. To illegal settlers, nothing should be provided. Suitable criminal proceedings and punishment should occur for them.)

[gershy]

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

[hardbass]

If jews want an ethnostate, then its valid for others also to want an ethnostate and boot out the foreign jews, yes or no? The answer is tied for both.

I could just as much find the people with genetics tracing to that region who are Muslims and Christians today. And if I manage to muster a number larger than those fraction of Israeli jews with genetic roots there, what would you say?

If I am 1% Native American and 99% English, what am I? Native or English?

[gershy]

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)

[hardbass]

The answer to both questions is I cannot place any comment without reading suitable genetic literature.

Your response to #2 confuses two different things. I made that statement in relation to moral justification for who owns the state per your standards. It is quite unrelated to the quite practical matter of who captures it, owns it. It is also "moot" morally as well since 3000 year old genetics are moot to legal status and ownership of the land, whether the person with genes going back there is Muslim, Christian or Jew. I do not believe in ethnostates.

My idealistic plan is what I came after some thought toward a just and fair solution as possible to all parties involved. The freed up land such as those evicted for lack of legal documents and the remainder of unallocated government land of the former Israeli government should of course be available to any person in the world with the suitable money and paperwork to buy property. In time this can become a new country but it should be administered by an international military force meanwhile. Ideally this should have been the unbroken rule of the British colonial government itself, but history is what it is.

[gershy]

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?