Views on territorial expansion after a failed war of aggression are indeed a core point of our difference. (The word "annexation" is biased.)

If you go back far enough, every country in the world has a history of expansion on some or all borders over time. None of today's nations existed with the same borders 1,000 years ago, and most not 100 years ago.

Israel was formed after WWI and WWII just like most of the Middle East (Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, etc.) The beginning was with the original Balfour declaration and negotiations during and after WWI in 1917, and then the finalized UN Plan after WWII in 1948, and the victory in the 1948 war when the Arabs attacked en masse and lost.

Of course the U.S. is also based on territorial expansion. And every other country depending on what year you want to go back to.

So the chasm is that you are singling out Israel for invalidation and destruction, and trying to justify that with typical border changes generations ago even though very few of those people are still alive today.

Do you want to bring back the Ottoman Empire? Really?

Of course not. You want to take everything the Jews (mostly) have built, ethnically cleanse them, and hand it all over to the Palestinians.

--

It is also naive to say that self-determination does not require land, a government, a military, elections, and so on. The idea that Jews can "self-determine" as a tiny minority in other countries is so thoroughly and repeatedly disproved, from Poland to Lithuania, to pre-Israel British rule, to Harvard Yard, it is bizarre you would suggest that.