The "settlements" (many of which are built on the premise that private property is meaningless) are only possible because of American support.
I agree, but he'll never do that, because without aid and support the settlements are not possible.
If it wasn't for dependence on the US, you all would not be in the position you're in now, because the folks who wanted colonial expansion would've had no means to act.
These are a
complete misreading of US aid and its effects on the Izzies.
To put it simply,
if there was no US aid, there would have been more settlements built by the Izzies. The US aid is part of what buys the US influence in Israeli politics. It is the USA anteing up to show we have skin in the game. And, since
our material interests in the ME rise & set on petroleum, in has been in our interests to rein the Izzies in and specifically, to act as a brake/moderator on Izzie settlement activity.
As MB points out, US aid (or its lack) is not large enough for a developed country to materially effect their ability to doze & build. Remember, that aid is for military goods and is only to be spent on military goods made in the USA. Some of what they buy could be had for a fraction elsewhere.
There are many folk who think we ought to cut the aid and let the Izzies repopulate the West Bank / Judea & Samaria as best and as fast as they can.
At the current rate, the only possible outcome is that eventually the military balances will change, and the hostile neighbors of Israel will destroy it. Maybe a hundred years, maybe two, but permanent displacement of Palestinians beyond what's already happened can only have that outcome.
I agree with part of this. I fully expect Israel to eat a nuke or ten after the tech gets pedestrian enough that Arab Muslims in an Arab Muslim country can manage to produce them on their own, without outside help. That would spell the end of Israel, I expect. But, the Palestinians will have squat to do with it, either implementation-wise or via the issue of Pali displacement.
First, it will be the ruling class of the country that produces them, not displaced Pali squatters. Second, the Pali displacement is an a convenient throw-away issue used by these sorts of country to keep their rabble distracted (AKA, "Arab Street."). The "Arab Street" is dangerous mainly only to subjugated minorities within Arab countries, but pose a moderate threat to their own despots (the ones using the Pali displacement as a distraction). The "Arab Street" is zero threat to anyone outside their particular country. They don;t have the reach or wits to brutalize any outside fist & AK range. The vast majority of Palis rate as "Arab Street," dangerous most of all to fellow Palis and second to Israelis, with whom they live cheek by jowl.
It is the well-educated Muslim with means that is a threat outside the borders of ME dungholes, if past performance is to be examined.
That is why national sovereignty should not be grounded in a race or culture.
I get your argument (or at least at what you are trying to get at), but you'll need to draft different vocabulary, as "nation" is bound up in race, tribe, culture, family, etc. "Nation" implies common birth and ancestors. Blood ties. If you don't believe me, ask a lexicographer or student of Latin. Put simply, if national sovereignty is not grounded in race or culture, it is not national sovereignty.
Oh, and your described of multicultural state has been successful largely under only despotic imperial rule. Liberal and consensual gov't requires the kind of trust provided by,
at minimum, a common culture. The more cultures and diversity of any type found in a polity, the lower the level of trust, the higher the level of friction, and the less liberty, as the gov't steps in and claims space formerly occupied and negotiated over between the citizenry.
