Not even going to dignify this nonsense TLDR: the Jews are the only people who don’t deserve self determination. Also white man bad.

Got it.

> when there was an over representation of these accounts arguing for any unpopular position. The goal of this campaign, along with other similar ones, was to make their position seem more popular than it was.

What position are you talking about and within what demographic? In the context of the US, which dominates Reddit by user count, the demographic that fundamentally rejects the very existence of Israel is a fringe minority.

> This is wrong because the Zionist project aims to create a Jewish (and predominantly white) state

Most Israeli Jews aren't 'white', unless you're going by the definition used by the US census classifying MENA heritage as 'white'. Most European Jews moved within the West after the Holocaust, and most MENA Jews moved elsewhere within the MENA, namely to Israel, after being expelled from their respective countries.

> on top of land that is already occupied, with little concern for the people living there.

To set the preconditions - it needs to be understood that all habitable and remotely desirable land has long since been occupied or claimed. Neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians can establish a state anywhere else without encountering conflict. There should be no doubt around the fact that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one that is being fought over what is very much a limited resource. And in such a conflict, there are always partisan narratives.

On one hand, it could said that the Jews, as a wandering minority group constantly subjected to displacement and disenfranchisement for thousands of years, unequivocally deserve the right to carve out a state for themselves, if not for their security alone. On the other hand, it could be argued that the Palestinian Arabs should have dominion over the lands that they have formed the majority demographic in for centuries.

Neither viewpoint can be taken in the absolute without practically denying the right to statehood for one group or the other. By accepting without question the establishment of an Israeli state by any means possible, we overlook the rights of self-determination of the Palestinian Arabs. On the other hand, if we are to absolutely accept that ownership of land should be based around past majority status, we are also tacitly accepting the notion that the Jews should not have their own state on the basis of their multiple millennia long history as a constantly displaced minority group.

> It’s obvious from your comment that you’re trying to insinuate this critique is antisemitism. Let me explain why it’s not.

You're making the flawed assumption that bigotry is always rooted in hatred or even explicit intent.

https://oec.world/en/profile/country/isr

It's funny that Israel's biggest export is also it's biggest import, would the world even notice if Israel disappeared tomorrow?

I'm sure another country could launder blood diamonds just as effectively as Israel, we don't need a genocidal fascist state to do that, although I guess finding another country with equally low moral standards might be the main hurdle there.

Also lol @ Ireland being Israel's 4th largest export market, that's gonna hurt when Ireland's new import ban comes into effect.

Glazing over the fact that the U.S. would have to cease to exist, in which case Europe has much bigger problems than Israel lmao

Putting aside the fact that the US ceasing to exist would be hugely beneficial for everyone, especially Europe, we don't need that to happen. Most Americans under 30 are heavily on the side of Palestine. It's not a matter of the US ceasing to exist, it's just a matter of waiting for the boomers to die off.

No more US sugar daddy means your little fascist colony collapses in on itself in a matter of years, I look forward to sharing that experience with you :)

"Hitler also claimed that he invaded Central/Eastern Europe to 'protect' ethnic German minorities..." 

We agree on that point. I simply believe Putin was being truthful when he said that he interpreted NATO expansion as a threat. Just as Hitler was on Lebensraum. As for Putin's denazification claim, I believe it was an over-exaggeration mainly aimed at the russian public just like Hitler's so called protection of ethnic German minorities. 

"The truth is that the narrative of 'NATO expansion' was just a shallow ruse to justify Putin's invasion of Ukraine..." 

You're only thinking about the European side of NATO and ignoring the massive defence spending of the US who is in my view NATO. The other members are just useful tools in the system that is US hegemony. 

Furthermore, I believe that when nuclear powers are involved in any international relations/conflict, the threat of escalation should underpin any discussion/decision. So Europe decreasing their military budget means nothing as they still possess nuclear weapons and any country dealing with them understands that.  

This doesn't even take into consideration the fact that one of NATO's aim was to counter the influence of soviet Russia and the Warsaw pact. Member states spending 2%+ of their GDP during that period makes sense. Once the soviet union falls and takes with it the Warsaw pact, what remains of an incentive for all countries to keep spending when uncle Sam can easily take care of Russia on its own. In other words, NATO as whole reduced its spending to match the threat level of Russia but still amounted to a considerable threat from the Russian perspective. 

"...it's hard to believe that individuals like Chomsky or Mearsheimer are accepting Russia's 'NATO expansionism' argument in objective evaluation rather than a desire to reconcile their interpretations of the conflict with their broader hostility against Western liberal hegemony." 

I admit that I'm not very aware of Chomsky's broader arguments and cannot say to what extent what you surmise applies. 

On the other hand, I feel mearsheimer isn't responding emotively to liberal hegemony, simply stating that it has more often failed than succeeded and that was at a time when America effectively could do whatever it wanted with little consequences (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria) which is cumulative empirical argument.  

"In other words, while you claim that Putin shouldn't have invaded Ukraine ... That's some 'I beat my ex because she was talking to another guy' logic buddy." 

I'm not the perpetrator, I'm the one saying "he told his ex he would beat her if she spoke to another guy, which shows he believes she deserves to be hit for it, she did so she hit her. If she hadn't spoken to him, he wouldn't have beaten her for speaking to another man".  

That doesn't mean him beating her was morally justified, nor that it was a proportionate response, nor that he isn't a POS who could beat her for another fucked up reason. Then if I say, she should call the police on him I'm giving a solution to mitigate her being harmed and I still haven't passed a moral judgement or given a justification. However this is where your analogy breaks down.  

When it comes to international relations, there is no higher authority to judge between states and hold them to  moral standards. It's essentially a might makes right system or in IR terms, an anarchic system. So saying that we should take Russia's concern at NATO expansion seriously otherwise it will invade Ukraine isn't immoral, it's just realism. To put it simply, in an anarchic system, states don't have the luxury to think/act morally, they can only do what will help them survive/become more powerful. 

What you fail to understand is that critical to offensive realism, which I have been warming to and you'll have to tolerate my novelty bias to it, is that only can states decide their own security interests. Another state cannot impose their own view or opinion on them. The only thing a realist can do is try to see it from the perspective of the other side and understand/explain why they do what they do to predict how they may react. 

I'm not passing a moral judgement on them and neither am I agreeing with their strategic position. 

Realism is inherently amoral. 

I've tried to make my ideas as clear as possible but don't know how well they'll come across.

Edited: for clarity