I appreciate your pragmatism when looking at the current situation, and i'm sorry for not understanding your divergence of opinion with formulaT. I still think your analysis is incorrect in many ways :
1/ you complete ignore the fact that, once again zionist didn't invade militarely any land, until the second part of the XXth century after wars that they never wanted. You depict the process of building israel as an intentionnal violent process which it never has been. You'll probably call them utopists or naiv people, and that's a fair thing to say ( although many of them were simply hopeless), but at least you should admit that it is a very different process from a military invasion.
2/ then you seem to forget that until 1945, the immigration of jews on that land was absolutely controlled by the ruling empire ( be it the ottomn empire, then the british). They were not all allowed to come ( tragically, for those who ended up exterminated by the nazis).
2.5/ you call this process illegitimate. But as i've shown, this was a controlled process by ruling empire. Unless you think the ottoman empire , then the british empire were illegitimate, because they weren't democratically elected by the local people ( which have never been ruled by a local organization). But that's a very anachronic judgment. You also compare it to mexican immigrant building a nation inside the US. But zionism wasn't first about building a nation, it was about owning a land that would be used for jews as a safehaven. Then, once it was clear that the british colonial empire would fall or could leave, did the project of having a true nation was put in place. But never was the state of israel proclaimed until no other organization ruled the land.
3/ finally, you dismiss the importance of the historical relation between the jews and the land, as something of no importance. That is something completely subjectiv. It may have no importance to you, or to the local arabs that didn't want jews as neighbours but as others have pointed out it is the major difference for jews. At least you should take this part of the equation into account.
1/ you complete ignore the fact that, once again zionist didn't invade militarely any land, until the second part of the XXth century after wars that they never wanted. You depict the process of building israel as an intentionnal violent process which it never has been. You'll probably call them utopists or naiv people, and that's a fair thing to say ( although many of them were simply hopeless), but at least you should admit that it is a very different process from a military invasion.
2/ then you seem to forget that until 1945, the immigration of jews on that land was absolutely controlled by the ruling empire ( be it the ottomn empire, then the british). They were not all allowed to come ( tragically, for those who ended up exterminated by the nazis).
2.5/ you call this process illegitimate. But as i've shown, this was a controlled process by ruling empire. Unless you think the ottoman empire , then the british empire were illegitimate, because they weren't democratically elected by the local people ( which have never been ruled by a local organization). But that's a very anachronic judgment. You also compare it to mexican immigrant building a nation inside the US. But zionism wasn't first about building a nation, it was about owning a land that would be used for jews as a safehaven. Then, once it was clear that the british colonial empire would fall or could leave, did the project of having a true nation was put in place. But never was the state of israel proclaimed until no other organization ruled the land.
3/ finally, you dismiss the importance of the historical relation between the jews and the land, as something of no importance. That is something completely subjectiv. It may have no importance to you, or to the local arabs that didn't want jews as neighbours but as others have pointed out it is the major difference for jews. At least you should take this part of the equation into account.