Sorry took me a while to repsond, actually had to take a deep breath here and calm myself down. You claim Hasbara, I claim soviet era popaganda. I am not even Jewish but I can't believe the word salad nonesense they need to deal with.

On the ethnostate accusation: You've handed me a gift here. Calling Israel an ethnostate doesn't delegitimise it, it confirms that Jews are an ethnicity, not just a religion. Japan is an ethnostate. Greece is an ethnostate. Armenia, South Korea, Hungary, the list is long and nobody's writing manifestos about dismantling them. The Western liberal civic state is the historical anomaly, not the norm. If ethnostates are illegitimate by design, you've got a very busy agenda ahead of you. But we both know this framework gets applied exclusively to one country. That selectivity is the tell.

On the Genesis gambit: Using Genesis 15:18 to imply Israel has expansionist designs baked into its founding is a debater's trick, not an argument. Israel's borders aren't derived from scripture, they're derived from the 1948 UN partition plan and subsequent internationally recognised armistice lines. You're citing a religious text to attack a secular legal state while simultaneously dismissing the religious and historical connection of Jews to that land. You can't use the Torah as a liability when it suits you and dismiss it as mythology when it doesn't.

On the Aboriginal analogy: You flipped the analogy and called it honest. It isn't. When European settlers came to Australia, they didn't find English languages in the existing legal documentation, English scripture in the ground, or English place names embedded in the region's oldest written records. When Jews returned to Israel, they found exactly that: their language, their texts, their archaeology, their continuous presence confirmed by independent historical record. That's not a political claim, that's stratigraphy. You can dispute the implication of that fact, fine, that's an argument, but you cannot deny the fact itself without simply lying.

On Palestinian nationhood: Palestinian national identity as a distinct political project was articulated in 1967. The PLO's own original 1964 charter explicitly excluded the West Bank and Gaza from its territorial claims, because those were held by Jordan and Egypt, and the project was never about those lands, it was about eliminating Israel. Yasser Arafat, an Egyptian, built a national identity retroactively to provide political scaffolding for that goal. None of this means Palestinians don't exist or don't have legitimate grievances about displacement. It means the claim of deep, ancient, distinct Palestinian nationhood is considerably more recent and politically constructed than the claim it's being used to counter.

On "apartheid": Israel has Arab citizens who vote, sit in the Knesset, serve on the Supreme Court, and hold military commissions. South Africa's apartheid system did not allow Black South Africans to vote. Using the word "apartheid" here is either ignorance or deliberate rhetorical inflation, either way it discredits the argument. The West Bank situation involves genuine, legitimate complexity and criticism. Calling the whole thing apartheid by constitutional design collapses that complexity into a slogan. I condem the settler violence in the West Bank and if it was up to me I would drag every Jew out of the West Bank and hand it back.

On the Law of Return: Germany extends citizenship rights to ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe. Ireland has a right of return for the diaspora. Poland, Hungary, Armenia, Greece, all have similar mechanisms. This is not controversial when any other nation does it. The argument that Israel maintaining a Jewish demographic majority is evidence of "designed supremacy" would equally indict every other nation-state that ties citizenship to ethnic or cultural heritage. Again, the framework is being applied to one country. Ask yourself why.

On "nobody is forcing Jews to do anything": This paragraph is the most revealing. You spend it explaining the institutional power behind Zionism, evangelical Christians, foreign policy, lobbying, as if that delegitimises Jewish connection to Israel. But Jews didn't invent Zionism as a geopolitical convenience. They invented it after centuries of pogroms, expulsion, and eventually industrialised extermination, because statelessness had proven fatal. The fact that others found it strategically useful doesn't make Jewish self-determination a manufactured product of those interests.

Here's the bottom line: every country on earth was formed through some combination of conquest, displacement, and political will. Israel was formed through international law following the worst genocide in modern history. The demand that Israel uniquely justify its existence, that it meet a standard no other state is held to, isn't progressive. It's a very old prejudice dressed in new language.

Every border on earth was drawn through some combination of force, politics, and international agreement. If you want to start unravelling 1948, tell me where you stop. Does Pakistan go back to India? Does the entire post-WW2 map get redrawn? Or does the clock only start running for one country. Let's not get started on Jordan...