Arguing with israeli

Never chide Israel, just note that it means they cant judge us from a position of universalist pretense. Pointing out their society is in contradiction to their professed values not to chide their society, but to suggest there really isnt a contradiction in protecting spheres of these values from being swamped by competing groups, which will fray the cohesion and harmony of society. Because people make values, and make values with regards to a situation they find themselves in as well, so introducing enough group competition rewards values which help you win rather than cooperate. Identity politics are an example of this, they give a political advantage aspiring politicians can pander to with the state's resource extraction.

few first world nations are as restrictive as Israel, which is what we are arguing when you have these pretenses of universalism

They will try guilt by association so point out who likud hangs with. They want to appear liberal, rob them of it

They will also pretend you have to experience genocide first or something like that. Something where your extermination is explicit

in that situation I think we will determine what a threat is and do what makes sense at the time and not what you think justifies action.

If civil violence breaks out it is an indictment of the American project regardless

On the contrary it is rather straightforward. If their are two mutually hostile communities in the same land, each pursuing dreams that are stuff of nightmares for the other, they must be ruled by an outside force or likely come into conflict.
and it is less coercive to not force them to share the same polity
Mandatory Palestine always had a bomb built into its foundation. The guarantees of a "Jewish national home" and "not infringing the rights of Arabs" were always incompatible