opinion of Zionism

[Lord Halifax]

Freedom ideologi or horrible ideology?

[LBJer]

I'm not voting because I don't find either option satisfactory.  As a Jew, my feelings about Zionism are mixed.  In theory it makes a good deal of sense, but in practice I don't think it's adequately addressed both the moral and the practical problems posed by the Palestinian Arab inhabitants of Palestine/Israel.  It's both telling and pretty appalling that in Der Judenstaat, Herzl makes no explicit mention at all of the Arabs.

[Vosem]

Freedom ideology; as I've discussed elsewhere I've attended real-life meetups of "network state" ideologists, whose ideology substantially reduces to "make all other schools of thought more like Zionism".

I am a member (have attended meetups and such) of an organization whose ideology is that people with common values, particularly ideological or religious values, should use DAOs (decentralized autonomous organizations) to coordinate moving to particular cities, then lobby those cities to officially use a currency issued by that DAO, and then control those cities through monetary policy.* People involved in the movement have a wide array of ideologies they want to see promoted (including some far-left ones; transgender people are very overrepresented), but it is most commonly some flavor of far-right. (Let a thousand Zionisms bloom!)

I think advocating for crypto kind of obviously means having a very materialist view (you probably think making lots of money is good, to care deeply about what the money should be), but less obviously it has a streak which is anti-majoritarian ('we can create our own society which will influence everyone, regardless of how people vote') and a streak which is strongly utopian, and in the 21st century utopian worldviews are much more common on the far-right than the far-left.

A global meetup of organizations at least sort of in alignment with this vision was held in Amsterdam last year; there is a lot of diversity on specifics because the whole point is that this is meant to promote all ideologies, but you get some common themes.

*Not everyone would endorse every detail of that, and you could simplify it to 'people should organize themselves to create new strongly ideological societies', but most of the suggestions for those societies would involve cryptocurrency or blockchain in some way as part of the governing mechanism.

What other groups in your opinion should do this? Libertarians?

I think the more obvious thing would be religious groups (Falun Gong, Ahmadiyya, Amish people, specific Middle Eastern sects like the Druze), particularly those relatively dispersed, but sure, "libertarians" might also work (and is also where this originally comes from).

The original more-extreme version of this comes from an idea in very hard crypto ideology, where DAOs are supposed to unite people around the world for a common purpose around a common token, which suggests that the members of any particular DAO -- presumably united by common values -- should all move to one city, influence the city to adopt the DAO's token as its currency, and then run the city through control of monetary policy. (These people just held a conference in Amsterdam, though I think most of specific projects were light on 'we should all use crypto' and heavy on 'people with similar interests or who desire similar lifestyle interventions from the government should live in one place'.) This seems very insane, but what I find interesting is the extent to which it is agnostic about what the DAO's/community's actual goals should be; we could probably have a better world if there were a country of just libertarians next to a country of just socialists, instead of two countries with 50/50 splits where both sides have to live under the other side's policies relatively often. (Also, I think in the real world a non-crypto, disorganized version of this very slowly happening is a relatively good explanation for post-2015 American population movements.)

Note that this also sort of envisions a quasi-Israeli outcome, where the expectation is that because of evaporative cooling countries around a new settler state would tend to be hostile to its values, so the settlers would constantly be motivated to defend themselves and maintain those values. I like "para-Zionist" for this suggestion because it very much envisions every other religion and ideology (or DAO charter, I suppose) gradually becoming more like Zionism.

[President Johnson]

Overall FI.

[GeneralMacArthur]

In the 19th century, a great many immigrant groups came to America determined to build a new home here.  In some cases it was entire sub-groups within a particular ethnic community that fully uprooted and moved here.  While they often raced some discrimination and resistance, and sometimes even minor acts of violence, they never faced anything remotely similar to the seething hatred and genocidal warfare inflicted by the Arabs against the Jews.  This has prevented the Jews from assimilating into the Middle East and becoming part of its cultural fabric, the way so many immigrant groups have in America.  And the end result is that, thanks to the neverending ethnoreligious hatred of their neighbors, Jews stick out like a sore thumb, unlike say Irish-Americans or Vietnamese-Americans.

Nobody ever says that Cambodian-Americans are "colonizers" or "immoral", and nobody would ever call it "appalling" if leaflets distributed in Italy encouraging immigration to America had failed to mention a "plan" for how to deal with the people already in America.

Of course the crucial difference here is that Israel became a sovereign state, while Mexican-Americans have never tried to form their own state out of their ethnicity in America.  But the only reason Israel exists as a state is because of and in response to the non-stop attempts to exterminate them.  Furthermore, not to rehash an age-old argument, but the land was not "stolen" from anyone or from any existing state, as the geopolitical origins of the state of Israel are extremely well-known and no state of Palestine ever existed to steal from (in fact, the entire notion of a "state of Palestine" was arguably invented in response to the creation of the state of Israel).

[KaiserDave]

Opinion of Italian unification?

The question is settled. Opposing or supporting it is practically redundant.

I may speculate that if I was around at the time I would have been opposed until after WWII, but now the question is moot.

[Don't Blame Me, I'm from Massachusetts]

FI

[LBJer]

I mean, when entire nonsensical religious philosophies (Xtianity and Islam), believe YOU, as a people, "killed their Gawd", a homeland where you can be free is required.

Where to start with this?  First of all, who in Islam ever said that Jews "killed their Gawd"?  The idea is as impossible and ridiculous in Islam as it would be in Judaism.

Secondly, if you're going to complain about intolerance from others, it might not be a good idea on your part to tell those others that their religious beliefs are "nonsensical."  

[Samof94]

I wish there was a third option. I would have opposed it in the 1940s, but today, within the "Green line" it is a settled question.

[Mine the Strait]

I believe that given the historical persecution of Jews in their host nations, Zionism is necessary. But I do not think that the forcible establishment of an ethnostate should ever be seen as anything more than a necessary evil.

[Long Live The King!]

Opinion of Italian unification?

The question is settled. Opposing or supporting it is practically redundant.

Exactly. Typically when an independence movement achieves its goal of creating an independent state for their nation, we don't go back in time to revise it many years later, unless you are an irredentist. Nobody ever asks;

'Opinion of Ukrainian independence?'
'Opinion of Indian independence?'
'Opinion of Irish independence?'
'Opinion of American independence?'

[LBJer]

Opinion of Italian unification?

The question is settled. Opposing or supporting it is practically redundant.

Exactly. Typically when an independence movement achieves its goal of creating an independent state for their nation, we don't go back in time to revise it many years later, unless you are an irredentist. Nobody ever asks;

'Opinion of Ukrainian independence?'
'Opinion of Indian independence?'
'Opinion of Irish independence?'
'Opinion of American independence?'

You neglect to mention that in none of those examples has the nation that became independent remained at war with another people who also have a claim to the land.  And while the U.S. did displace (and sometimes worse) Indian tribes, there's no Palestinian counterpart to tribal sovereignty--the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank are clearly living under Israeli occupation.

[Vosem]

Opinion of Italian unification?

The question is settled. Opposing or supporting it is practically redundant.

Exactly. Typically when an independence movement achieves its goal of creating an independent state for their nation, we don't go back in time to revise it many years later, unless you are an irredentist. Nobody ever asks;

'Opinion of Ukrainian independence?'
'Opinion of Indian independence?'
'Opinion of Irish independence?'
'Opinion of American independence?'

You neglect to mention that in none of those examples has the nation that became independent remained at war with another people who also have a claim to the land.  And while the U.S. did displace (and sometimes worse) Indian tribes, there's no Palestinian counterpart to tribal sovereignty--the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank are clearly living under Israeli occupation.

Really? Gaza certainly seems like a de facto independent state, with an independent foreign policy and so forth; until the events of the last few months I think it must have been very hard to argue with a straight face that it was under Israeli occupation. The West Bank has pretty substantial Palestinian self-government, although there you do have continued Israeli security control.

All of this is without getting into the question of the extent to which its coherent to discuss a country 'occupying' territory that it has the pretty obvious legal right to. Donbass was occupied after 2014, not before it; Chechnya was occupied before 1999, not after it. There is a general complication that Israel has recognized Palestinian statehood as a goal and that all sides wish for the distinction between Israeli citizens and Palestinian citizens to be maintained, though.

[LBJer]

Opinion of Italian unification?

The question is settled. Opposing or supporting it is practically redundant.

Exactly. Typically when an independence movement achieves its goal of creating an independent state for their nation, we don't go back in time to revise it many years later, unless you are an irredentist. Nobody ever asks;

'Opinion of Ukrainian independence?'
'Opinion of Indian independence?'
'Opinion of Irish independence?'
'Opinion of American independence?'

You neglect to mention that in none of those examples has the nation that became independent remained at war with another people who also have a claim to the land.  And while the U.S. did displace (and sometimes worse) Indian tribes, there's no Palestinian counterpart to tribal sovereignty--the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank are clearly living under Israeli occupation.

Really? Gaza certainly seems like a de facto independent state, with an independent foreign policy and so forth; until the events of the last few months I think it must have been very hard to argue with a straight face that it was under Israeli occupation. The West Bank has pretty substantial Palestinian self-government, although there you do have continued Israeli security control.

All of this is without getting into the question of the extent to which its coherent to discuss a country 'occupying' territory that it has the pretty obvious legal right to. Donbass was occupied after 2014, not before it; Chechnya was occupied before 1999, not after it. There is a general complication that Israel has recognized Palestinian statehood as a goal and that all sides wish for the distinction between Israeli citizens and Palestinian citizens to be maintained, though.

Physical sovereignty over one's territory is considered a basic element of independence.  And the current Israeli prime minister certainly hasn't "recognized Palestinian statehood as a goal"--on the contrary, he's made clear that he's opposed to it. 

[Vosem]

Opinion of Italian unification?

The question is settled. Opposing or supporting it is practically redundant.

Exactly. Typically when an independence movement achieves its goal of creating an independent state for their nation, we don't go back in time to revise it many years later, unless you are an irredentist. Nobody ever asks;

'Opinion of Ukrainian independence?'
'Opinion of Indian independence?'
'Opinion of Irish independence?'
'Opinion of American independence?'

You neglect to mention that in none of those examples has the nation that became independent remained at war with another people who also have a claim to the land.  And while the U.S. did displace (and sometimes worse) Indian tribes, there's no Palestinian counterpart to tribal sovereignty--the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank are clearly living under Israeli occupation.

Really? Gaza certainly seems like a de facto independent state, with an independent foreign policy and so forth; until the events of the last few months I think it must have been very hard to argue with a straight face that it was under Israeli occupation. The West Bank has pretty substantial Palestinian self-government, although there you do have continued Israeli security control.

All of this is without getting into the question of the extent to which its coherent to discuss a country 'occupying' territory that it has the pretty obvious legal right to. Donbass was occupied after 2014, not before it; Chechnya was occupied before 1999, not after it. There is a general complication that Israel has recognized Palestinian statehood as a goal and that all sides wish for the distinction between Israeli citizens and Palestinian citizens to be maintained, though.

Physical sovereignty over one's territory is considered a basic element of independence.  And the current Israeli prime minister certainly hasn't "recognized Palestinian statehood as a goal"--on the contrary, he's made clear that he's opposed to it. 

If the Israeli government as a whole were opposed to it, it could choose to unilaterally annex Palestine. It not doing this is the most basic element of its policy towards Palestinian nationalism.

That there won't be a Palestinian state tomorrow is kind of obvious just because of the likely ideology of such a state; Palestinian liberationism has perpetrated massacres in Lebanon, attempted to overthrow the government of Jordan, aided insurgencies in Egypt, and so on and so forth; there is no one who would reasonably support immediate unilateral independence (on any set of boundaries) in the region. Demands for such a state, and their refusal, are just kabuki. Such a state would emerge only when its likely ideology would change to one not threatening to its neighbors, which (but I repeat myself) will only become possible once international support for Palestinian liberationism dies.

[LBJer]

Opinion of Italian unification?

The question is settled. Opposing or supporting it is practically redundant.

Exactly. Typically when an independence movement achieves its goal of creating an independent state for their nation, we don't go back in time to revise it many years later, unless you are an irredentist. Nobody ever asks;

'Opinion of Ukrainian independence?'
'Opinion of Indian independence?'
'Opinion of Irish independence?'
'Opinion of American independence?'

You neglect to mention that in none of those examples has the nation that became independent remained at war with another people who also have a claim to the land.  And while the U.S. did displace (and sometimes worse) Indian tribes, there's no Palestinian counterpart to tribal sovereignty--the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank are clearly living under Israeli occupation.

Really? Gaza certainly seems like a de facto independent state, with an independent foreign policy and so forth; until the events of the last few months I think it must have been very hard to argue with a straight face that it was under Israeli occupation. The West Bank has pretty substantial Palestinian self-government, although there you do have continued Israeli security control.

All of this is without getting into the question of the extent to which its coherent to discuss a country 'occupying' territory that it has the pretty obvious legal right to. Donbass was occupied after 2014, not before it; Chechnya was occupied before 1999, not after it. There is a general complication that Israel has recognized Palestinian statehood as a goal and that all sides wish for the distinction between Israeli citizens and Palestinian citizens to be maintained, though.

Physical sovereignty over one's territory is considered a basic element of independence.  And the current Israeli prime minister certainly hasn't "recognized Palestinian statehood as a goal"--on the contrary, he's made clear that he's opposed to it. 

If the Israeli government as a whole were opposed to it, it could choose to unilaterally annex Palestine. It not doing this is the most basic element of its policy towards Palestinian nationalism.

That there won't be a Palestinian state tomorrow is kind of obvious just because of the likely ideology of such a state; Palestinian liberationism has perpetrated massacres in Lebanon, attempted to overthrow the government of Jordan, aided insurgencies in Egypt, and so on and so forth; there is no one who would reasonably support immediate unilateral independence (on any set of boundaries) in the region. Demands for such a state, and their refusal, are just kabuki. Such a state would emerge only when its likely ideology would change to one not threatening to its neighbors, which (but I repeat myself) will only become possible once international support for Palestinian liberationism dies.

Your whole reasoning is so one-sided it's comical.  If the Palestinians' behavior was the only issue here, why has Israel put settlements in the West Bank like cheese through a salad?  And since when was a people required to have a "good attitude" toward those ruling it to have a right to independence?  And if "aiding insurgencies" and attempting to overthrow governments are an adequate reason not to have a Palestinian state, maybe the U.S. shouldn't have gotten its independence either. 

[Vosem]

Opinion of Italian unification?

The question is settled. Opposing or supporting it is practically redundant.

Exactly. Typically when an independence movement achieves its goal of creating an independent state for their nation, we don't go back in time to revise it many years later, unless you are an irredentist. Nobody ever asks;

'Opinion of Ukrainian independence?'
'Opinion of Indian independence?'
'Opinion of Irish independence?'
'Opinion of American independence?'

You neglect to mention that in none of those examples has the nation that became independent remained at war with another people who also have a claim to the land.  And while the U.S. did displace (and sometimes worse) Indian tribes, there's no Palestinian counterpart to tribal sovereignty--the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank are clearly living under Israeli occupation.

Really? Gaza certainly seems like a de facto independent state, with an independent foreign policy and so forth; until the events of the last few months I think it must have been very hard to argue with a straight face that it was under Israeli occupation. The West Bank has pretty substantial Palestinian self-government, although there you do have continued Israeli security control.

All of this is without getting into the question of the extent to which its coherent to discuss a country 'occupying' territory that it has the pretty obvious legal right to. Donbass was occupied after 2014, not before it; Chechnya was occupied before 1999, not after it. There is a general complication that Israel has recognized Palestinian statehood as a goal and that all sides wish for the distinction between Israeli citizens and Palestinian citizens to be maintained, though.

Physical sovereignty over one's territory is considered a basic element of independence.  And the current Israeli prime minister certainly hasn't "recognized Palestinian statehood as a goal"--on the contrary, he's made clear that he's opposed to it. 

If the Israeli government as a whole were opposed to it, it could choose to unilaterally annex Palestine. It not doing this is the most basic element of its policy towards Palestinian nationalism.

That there won't be a Palestinian state tomorrow is kind of obvious just because of the likely ideology of such a state; Palestinian liberationism has perpetrated massacres in Lebanon, attempted to overthrow the government of Jordan, aided insurgencies in Egypt, and so on and so forth; there is no one who would reasonably support immediate unilateral independence (on any set of boundaries) in the region. Demands for such a state, and their refusal, are just kabuki. Such a state would emerge only when its likely ideology would change to one not threatening to its neighbors, which (but I repeat myself) will only become possible once international support for Palestinian liberationism dies.

Your whole reasoning is so one-sided it's comical.  If the Palestinians' behavior was the only issue here, why has Israel put settlements in the West Bank like cheese through a salad?  And since when was a people required to have a "good attitude" toward those ruling it to have a right to independence?  And if "aiding insurgencies" and attempting to overthrow governments are an adequate reason not to have a Palestinian state, maybe the U.S. shouldn't have gotten its independence either. 

Modern decolonization law dates back to the 1940s, and establishes that there is a right to decolonization (explicitly defined as territories separate from a metropole in such a way as to exclude Soviet Central Asia), but that there is no right to independence. This is why Catalonia is not independent for a First World example, but there are many developing-world examples (Ambazonia and Biafra coming to mind immediately). It's one-sided because Israel is just very simply in the right: it has a right to exist as an internationally recognized state, and Palestine as a territory seeking independence only has a right to that independence at Israel's sufferance. West Bank settlements are not illegal for the same reason Andalucians moving to Barcelona are not illegal.

The US became independent at a time when the right of conquest was a thing; the American revolutionaries won a war with Britain. Even if this happened today it wouldn't be sufficient for general recognition, as Somaliland (for example) can attest.

[LBJer]

Opinion of Italian unification?

The question is settled. Opposing or supporting it is practically redundant.

Exactly. Typically when an independence movement achieves its goal of creating an independent state for their nation, we don't go back in time to revise it many years later, unless you are an irredentist. Nobody ever asks;

'Opinion of Ukrainian independence?'
'Opinion of Indian independence?'
'Opinion of Irish independence?'
'Opinion of American independence?'

You neglect to mention that in none of those examples has the nation that became independent remained at war with another people who also have a claim to the land.  And while the U.S. did displace (and sometimes worse) Indian tribes, there's no Palestinian counterpart to tribal sovereignty--the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank are clearly living under Israeli occupation.

Really? Gaza certainly seems like a de facto independent state, with an independent foreign policy and so forth; until the events of the last few months I think it must have been very hard to argue with a straight face that it was under Israeli occupation. The West Bank has pretty substantial Palestinian self-government, although there you do have continued Israeli security control.

All of this is without getting into the question of the extent to which its coherent to discuss a country 'occupying' territory that it has the pretty obvious legal right to. Donbass was occupied after 2014, not before it; Chechnya was occupied before 1999, not after it. There is a general complication that Israel has recognized Palestinian statehood as a goal and that all sides wish for the distinction between Israeli citizens and Palestinian citizens to be maintained, though.

Physical sovereignty over one's territory is considered a basic element of independence.  And the current Israeli prime minister certainly hasn't "recognized Palestinian statehood as a goal"--on the contrary, he's made clear that he's opposed to it. 

If the Israeli government as a whole were opposed to it, it could choose to unilaterally annex Palestine. It not doing this is the most basic element of its policy towards Palestinian nationalism.

That there won't be a Palestinian state tomorrow is kind of obvious just because of the likely ideology of such a state; Palestinian liberationism has perpetrated massacres in Lebanon, attempted to overthrow the government of Jordan, aided insurgencies in Egypt, and so on and so forth; there is no one who would reasonably support immediate unilateral independence (on any set of boundaries) in the region. Demands for such a state, and their refusal, are just kabuki. Such a state would emerge only when its likely ideology would change to one not threatening to its neighbors, which (but I repeat myself) will only become possible once international support for Palestinian liberationism dies.

Your whole reasoning is so one-sided it's comical.  If the Palestinians' behavior was the only issue here, why has Israel put settlements in the West Bank like cheese through a salad?  And since when was a people required to have a "good attitude" toward those ruling it to have a right to independence?  And if "aiding insurgencies" and attempting to overthrow governments are an adequate reason not to have a Palestinian state, maybe the U.S. shouldn't have gotten its independence either. 

Modern decolonization law dates back to the 1940s, and establishes that there is a right to decolonization (explicitly defined as territories separate from a metropole in such a way as to exclude Soviet Central Asia), but that there is no right to independence. This is why Catalonia is not independent for a First World example, but there are many developing-world examples (Ambazonia and Biafra coming to mind immediately). It's one-sided because Israel is just very simply in the right: it has a right to exist as an internationally recognized state, and Palestine as a territory seeking independence only has a right to that independence at Israel's sufferance. West Bank settlements are not illegal for the same reason Andalucians moving to Barcelona are not illegal.

The US became independent at a time when the right of conquest was a thing; the American revolutionaries won a war with Britain. Even if this happened today it wouldn't be sufficient for general recognition, as Somaliland (for example) can attest.

You, like many who are pro-Zionist, seem to want to have it both ways--arguing for a Jewish homeland on moral grounds but then turning around and making legalistic arguments as to why the Palestinians don't have a right to independence.  If you both say they have no right to independence and that subjugating them they way they are now is just fine, you're basically saying they're not entitled to the dignity of being treated as human beings. 

And the comparison of Andalucians and Barcelona is ridiculous.  The people of Barcelona are citizens of Spain.  Andalucians are not living on their land on the grounds that God said they had the right to live there. 

[Long Live The King!]

Opinion of Italian unification?

The question is settled. Opposing or supporting it is practically redundant.

Exactly. Typically when an independence movement achieves its goal of creating an independent state for their nation, we don't go back in time to revise it many years later, unless you are an irredentist. Nobody ever asks;

'Opinion of Ukrainian independence?'
'Opinion of Indian independence?'
'Opinion of Irish independence?'
'Opinion of American independence?'

You neglect to mention that in none of those examples has the nation that became independent remained at war with another people who also have a claim to the land.  

All of those countries did have a version of this though - however the causes of the entities challenging the independent states' sovereignty in the other cases were seen as less justified/had less support than the Palestinian cause, for a variety of reasons.

There was a war between Ireland and the UK (and after that, fighting over who Northern Ireland belongs to), there was a war between India and Pakistan, there is an ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine (which started after Ukrainian independence but Russia still uses its control over Ukraine in the past to justify it).

Maybe the question should be why Israeli sovereignty is still a question mark over 7 decades after it has become a fully independent country.

[Vosem]

Opinion of Italian unification?

The question is settled. Opposing or supporting it is practically redundant.

Exactly. Typically when an independence movement achieves its goal of creating an independent state for their nation, we don't go back in time to revise it many years later, unless you are an irredentist. Nobody ever asks;

'Opinion of Ukrainian independence?'
'Opinion of Indian independence?'
'Opinion of Irish independence?'
'Opinion of American independence?'

You neglect to mention that in none of those examples has the nation that became independent remained at war with another people who also have a claim to the land.  And while the U.S. did displace (and sometimes worse) Indian tribes, there's no Palestinian counterpart to tribal sovereignty--the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank are clearly living under Israeli occupation.

Really? Gaza certainly seems like a de facto independent state, with an independent foreign policy and so forth; until the events of the last few months I think it must have been very hard to argue with a straight face that it was under Israeli occupation. The West Bank has pretty substantial Palestinian self-government, although there you do have continued Israeli security control.

All of this is without getting into the question of the extent to which its coherent to discuss a country 'occupying' territory that it has the pretty obvious legal right to. Donbass was occupied after 2014, not before it; Chechnya was occupied before 1999, not after it. There is a general complication that Israel has recognized Palestinian statehood as a goal and that all sides wish for the distinction between Israeli citizens and Palestinian citizens to be maintained, though.

Physical sovereignty over one's territory is considered a basic element of independence.  And the current Israeli prime minister certainly hasn't "recognized Palestinian statehood as a goal"--on the contrary, he's made clear that he's opposed to it. 

If the Israeli government as a whole were opposed to it, it could choose to unilaterally annex Palestine. It not doing this is the most basic element of its policy towards Palestinian nationalism.

That there won't be a Palestinian state tomorrow is kind of obvious just because of the likely ideology of such a state; Palestinian liberationism has perpetrated massacres in Lebanon, attempted to overthrow the government of Jordan, aided insurgencies in Egypt, and so on and so forth; there is no one who would reasonably support immediate unilateral independence (on any set of boundaries) in the region. Demands for such a state, and their refusal, are just kabuki. Such a state would emerge only when its likely ideology would change to one not threatening to its neighbors, which (but I repeat myself) will only become possible once international support for Palestinian liberationism dies.

Your whole reasoning is so one-sided it's comical.  If the Palestinians' behavior was the only issue here, why has Israel put settlements in the West Bank like cheese through a salad?  And since when was a people required to have a "good attitude" toward those ruling it to have a right to independence?  And if "aiding insurgencies" and attempting to overthrow governments are an adequate reason not to have a Palestinian state, maybe the U.S. shouldn't have gotten its independence either. 

Modern decolonization law dates back to the 1940s, and establishes that there is a right to decolonization (explicitly defined as territories separate from a metropole in such a way as to exclude Soviet Central Asia), but that there is no right to independence. This is why Catalonia is not independent for a First World example, but there are many developing-world examples (Ambazonia and Biafra coming to mind immediately). It's one-sided because Israel is just very simply in the right: it has a right to exist as an internationally recognized state, and Palestine as a territory seeking independence only has a right to that independence at Israel's sufferance. West Bank settlements are not illegal for the same reason Andalucians moving to Barcelona are not illegal.

The US became independent at a time when the right of conquest was a thing; the American revolutionaries won a war with Britain. Even if this happened today it wouldn't be sufficient for general recognition, as Somaliland (for example) can attest.

You, like many who are pro-Zionist, seem to want to have it both ways--arguing for a Jewish homeland on moral grounds but then turning around and making legalistic arguments as to why the Palestinians don't have a right to independence.  If you both say they have no right to independence and that subjugating them they way they are now is just fine, you're basically saying they're not entitled to the dignity of being treated as human beings. 

And the comparison of Andalucians and Barcelona is ridiculous.  The people of Barcelona are citizens of Spain.  Andalucians are not living on their land on the grounds that God said they had the right to live there. 

Where's the "both ways"? No ethnicity has an inherent right to a homeland, because an ethnicity is not a legal creature. A state may choose to become an ethnicity's homeland, and in many parts of the world this is common, but there is neither a Jewish nor a Palestinian right to any homeland. (I guess in this case I believe nobody is entitled to what you consider basic dignity -- this reminds me of my conversation with pppolitics where he said I didn't think the Palestinians were human, and I was advocating treatment better than what my ancestors received from the side they were fighting for).

The alternative is just endless civil wars and wars of independence in every country everywhere, and probably a substantial breakdown of governance in most of the world. It is not a complicated question.

Of course it's not ridiculous. It is very likely that a fair referendum in 2017-18 would've resulted in independence for Catalonia, which is why its opponents boycotted the referendum that took place. If not for migrants from other parts of Spain, it would've been very decisive. Insisting that Catalonians have the same rights as other kinds of Spaniards (as opposed to maintaining a separate legal identity and holding them apart) is not a concession to the Catalonian independence movement, but an attempt (which is perfectly legally valid IMO) to deny its existence.

[redjohn]

I understand it, respect its origins, but think that it is currently being weaponized to support mass killings and war crimes against Palestine (and is being used to discredit Muslims and those who sympathize with Palestinians across the world). Zionism has a legitimate purpose, but it being weaponized to support the destruction of Palestine is genuinely gut-wrenching.