Yes and I am saying there is no naturalistic or scientific meaning to 3000. Its a number of selfish convenience. Israelis may try to say it is special, but it has no meaning to others.

The number is completely secondary - the significant thing is the location of the birthplace of the people/nation - that's what tells you who is indigenous to which land.

I assume you concede that there is a perfectly valid reason for jews to be interested in the land that is roughly modern day israel/palestine, i.e. it is the place where jews originated.

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.

(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.)

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

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?

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)

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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)?

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.

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"?

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.

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?

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.

I think there are plenty of ethnostates that function well internally, and do little unjustifiable harm to others.

So your question is "how to justify the movement of newcomers into the midst of former residents of british palestine and the ottoman empire"? The obvious initial answer - and I'm sure you'll have a pointed followup which I look forward to and will likely cause me to disavow israel in various ways - is that the lack of any state apparatus there (due to disintegration of the ottomans and withdrawal of the british) creates an environment in which there is a lack of formal resistance to the construction of a new state.

Essentially territory that is unencompassed by anything strongly resembling a state is a favourable place to construct a state.

Why the british withdrew is closely connected as the Israeli/Zionist continuous terroristic attacks against the British and clamping down the Israeli/Arab terrorist factions warring is what was the final straw that broke the camel's back of a country already weakened by WW2. The fact of a place lacking a formal military I hope doesn't make it legal or okay by the some entity to violate their property rights, for the same could be said equally either way for Israeli illegal settlement expansions, for if there is no clear state system there, what's the objection against shooting down the squatters? (Even with a real state existing some countries have things like the Castle doctrine of course, which gives a full legal justification to shoot down the Israeli squatters). The real question that must be answered is if the locals are okay with you arriving, if you came in and legally purchased property or were granted some parcels of land with agreement by the locals, neither of which of course occurred during the violent establishment of Israel. The question of property and territory is very ancient and predates even humans, even animals have a sense of territory. So if you do not respect the existing legal claims by the British or Ottoman governments or claims by precedent of living, then you should be justly treated as an illegal invader. It is a very high degree of naked ingratitude to complain and start attacks against the Brits for controlling their own border and restricting immigration to their own lands, behaving as if these random Poles and Russians literally own the place. Would you support random Poles or Russians performing terrorist attacks against America if the USA instituted a strong and limited immigration quota upon them? Because that's what happened in the region of Israel back then. I completely understand the Holocaust but that gives a person no right to go ahead and rob at gunpoint an unrelated entity's land, moreover launching attacks against a country that bled so much fighting against nazis.

You're branching off in a lot of directions. Is there a specific point you'd like to focus on? Do you agree "territory unencompassed by anything strongly resembling a state is a favourable place to construct a state"?