[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?

[hardbass]

Of course not. What happened 3000 years ago is hardly relevant to property rights and legal matters 80 years ago. If someone traces their genes to that area, that might help of course, he might be able to produce an unbroken series of valid inheritances, entails, etc proving that each ancestor is indeed their direct ancestor and that the inheritance claim is valid. If one can show a valid unbroken chain of land transfers from 3000 years ago till now, then 3000 has a significance, otherwise it has zero significance to the principles of law. As of yet, I am not aware of any such offers. The genetic origins of "Jews" or "lebanese" or anyone else is an interesting anthropological and academic topic that has no bearing to property rights. You are forgetting and I must again remind you that I do not believe in ethnostates and even if I took that assumption for granted, 3000 is far past any sane statute of limitations. I do not care about "indigenous", if a person from Canada with gaulish lineage is denied citizenship to France, then he has no right to commit terror acts against France.

[gershy]

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?

[hardbass]

Absolutely yes to the first two, including "Chinese", "Japanese", "Somali" or any other existing ethnostates, nothing special about Israel. But what's done is done, a persons private property/a justified governments belief of what people are allowed to buy or not is a more important thing. As for the third, yes I would prevent by any non-violent means possible should there be an attempt to launch a new ethnostate. If there is already a conflict, I will materially support the side that isn't an ethnostate. Iranians wanting to reinstate some stupid king is not something I support, if you just wanted a dictatorship you already live under one and I see no point in the bloodshed and human loss to change to yet another. I do not support druze or any other racialist splinter state movements. I would fully support any movement that wants a capitalist and democratic secular Iran. Nothing special or complicated really. A jew or lebanese tracing dna back there is a curious academic fact, just as the fact that they both also trace dna back to some spot in African further ago. Neither of these facts affect any matters in property rights or contracts.

[gershy]

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)?