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)?
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?
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?
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)
Israeli culture is roughly jewish + middle-eastern culture. American jews have jewish + american culture. American jews would find they read the exact same prayers as israeli jews, can immediately feel comfortable in synagogue; relate to israeli jews in terms of values and religion and desire for a homeland on the mediterranean coast, but would be shocked by, e.g., the middle-eastern-style haggling in israeli markets, the directness of israelis, etc. The judaism is the overlap, otherwise very different.
3000 as that is the age of judea, the state central to jewish ethnogenesis.
Netanyahu is an ashkenazi jew. His family traces back to ukraine and lithuania, where it remained jewish; unassimilated. Trace ancestors back further, and you will get to judea. The culture in judea provides a lens which very strongly helps to explain who netanyahu is today. If you trace back earlier than judea to e.g. canaanites, you will lose any useful lens for understanding jews today. This is why judea is not an arbitrary point in the timeline; it is the center of jewish ethnogenesis. Does that make sense?
Judea is central to jewish ethnogenesis. That's ~3000 years ago, not 100000.
Netanyahu is an ashkenazi jew. We know who his parents, grandparents, etc are - he's also claimed to have taken a genetic test, which registered him as primarily ashkenazi. Do you have evidence to the contrary?
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)
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?
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.
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.)
You can trace it back much earlier than that - until at least the 1500s, when the conflict was present but at much less of a boil. I'm assuming you concede that "if X does it to Y, it's fine for Y to do it to X" is not a functional model here. You should at least ask yourself, "how would I need to change my outlook if I learned it was impossible to resolve who started it?"
I'm saying I could give you an example of unconstrained attacks against israel prior to this incident - so is X sinking to the level of Y, or vice-versa? The answer is, I believe, neither - the mental model simply isn't functional. And certainly we should still both advocate against tactics that are unjustified at baseline, no? Does that make sense?
Those european jews descend from judea (levant) - genetic tests confirm this. It's a rare instance of a displaced population returning home after centuries.
Saying "I accept X using any tactic against Y that Y used against X" is meaningless in an ongoing tit-for-tat conflict unless you pick an arbitrary historical starting point. You may naturally lean towards picking an anti-israel starting point, but that isn't the only option.
Strikes against hamas leadership have war value, and I personally find proportional collateral damage justifiable.
Netanyahu is roughly (not legally but comparable) a commander in chief and targetting him likewise has war value and is justifiable. I'm not sure of ben gvir's role in military matters, but that's what I would base my answer on.
Github: https://github.com/gershy