[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)?

[hardbass]

On similar lines of reasoning I would oppose the organizing of a communist or nazi government, it might or might not be non-harmful today but it is laying the seeds for harm. How many times have you heard people inciting war over a specific race or nation? Why shouldn't I support or prevent any kinds of organizations I want? However for Israel, the main reason for the bitterness is the blatant thievery of others land and continual blatant violations of property rights and murders. You said you feel Israel is justified in their actions. Justify the settler expansions then.

[gershy]

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"?

[hardbass]

Communism, nazism and nationalism are proven time and again to cause mass death and destruction. Why engage in the stupidity of trying these faulty systems again and again? Nationalism is tied to and depends on ethnic composition existing in a state. Its much harder to induce nationalism in a mixed population.

With israel of course we don't even need to come to such theoretical matters, as the entity was founded by vile terroristic attacks against the very country that granted it the land and naked robbery of others property and it continues today to rob others lands and thus the valid and just response is to shoot the invaders and thieves until they desist as is the right of any property owner to do to a intruder that threatens their life.

You said before you feel Israels actions are justified, so I am asking again, justify the illegal settlers. If not then I hope you have no problem with the land owners engaging in valid self defense.

[gershy]

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?

[hardbass]

Yes the classification of what is deemed soundly harmful to be allowed to exist goes on a false negative basis as would any such sane assessment be. I do not try to predict the future of every possible system, but it is quite clear some systems are always disastrous.

The people already living there under Ottoman and British rule obviously with suitable legal arrangements deemed agreeable by the former governments. The terroristic appropriation of British administered land just a few decades ago is of course not something anyone of a calm mind would deem as valid so by necessity claims of validity must trace from previous governments. Obviously if it were say a few centuries ago it'd have been not a matter worth doing anything about, time matters. And right now, further other peoples legal lands too, which settlers come at gunpoint and rob. Your state supports the illicit settlers viz the current ongoing expansions by technically non-state actors, quite aside from the state itself being an illicit settlement of course.