Thanks for providing your pov, it explains a lot of things and even though I have my views I can totally understand why we disagree: > Jewish immigration to th

Thanks for providing your pov, it explains a lot of things and even though I have my views I can totally understand why we disagree: > Jewish immigration to the region was legal This is the crux of where we disagree. It was legal based on international law, but international law is just western law: Palestinians and neighboring countries said no, and under the same international law they were in the right: they have the right to self-determination. So if we take the legal point, the argument is not receivable > and should be viewed as moral on many levels That's plainly subjective and my own thinking makes me say it's immoral to displace hundreds of thousands of people and take their homes, their land, their food, just because. > But this is not what most people talk about when they say Israel is a colonist. What most people mean is the existence of the state of Israel is the "settlement" I disagree, anyone I've seen talking about the colonialist aspect of Israel is specifically all the illegal settlements outside its borders, it's the massive control of Palestinian population, it's forbidding them access to their own sea, that kind of things. Everyone who talks about it is clear. When people talk about the existence of Israel and its racist laws, they will rather use the term "apartheid" which is closer to the truth. In any case, those disagreements are to be put in perspective to what we both agree on, and that is the nice note of this discussion :)