[hardbass]

If it were something completely alien like remote tribes then the property rights concepts would need some bridging, but the Levant has had traditional governments for centuries, so in that case I think the fact that it went through a period of instability does not negate that people, including in living memory had legal documentation and ownership deeds to a valid government. In my view, claims should thus pass to the last legitimate government if the time period has been so short. Again I should make it clear I am speaking independent of the fact of who has more firepower right now, ie the legally just solution would be repelling the invaders.

[gershy]

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?

[hardbass]

Again, I should clarify that I am speaking of the justification not the practical reality which is where at present whoever has more firepower will manage to own the place. Even if no previous state is interested in it, it does not just make the land free for all morally and justly. It also applies to the houses of Jews that were stolen at end of WW2, it is recent enough I believe it should be restored and any present owner should be compensated and let out.

[gershy]

Justice (justification) and practical reality are fundamentally linked.

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

[hardbass]

As I said the practical reality of who has more firepower is a different issue. It might as well be China who owns that patch of land 50 years from now for all we know.

[gershy]

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?