This is so ignorant:
"Why does it matter to point out that something wasn't a State before?"... Only a fucking Amerimutt would make this argument and claim he doesn't see the point of a country existing pre-Statehood and post-Statehood. In fact, given that Dylan Burns is a leftist, do leftists not attack the idea of Statehood on the basis that it was a notion imposed upon regions due to Napoleon Bonaparte's conquests and re-partitioning of Europe, that was then exported and imposed around the world by colonialism? OF COURSE it fucking matter if some region considered itself distinct or part of a unified whole before it had Statehood imposed on them.
"I come from a self-determination perspective" is a cop-out and typical leftist magical thinking because even if you give everyone self-determination, you still have to deal with all the problems that nationalism does address head-on: the question of land, the question of water (& resources) and the question of population density. Dzooz cannot give Arabs the same rights in Israel because Arabs have a higher birthrate and deliberately weaponize reproduction as a population bomb (for a while the Jihadists had female terrorists, but then they told their female terrorists to go home and have a lot of children, telling them that's a form of Jihad too).
The notion of self-determination is meaningless if you don't see the struggle of the nation State as a struggle over the above issues. Russia didn't evade Ukraine just because they're evil people who want to suppress those poor Ukrainians. They invaded Ukraine because they want what Ukraine has.
When the historian discusses the origins of the slogan
"From the river to see", and shows that this is historically a genocidal slogan referring to the destruction of Israel and the intent to kick all Dzooz out of Israel, both Lonerbox and Dylan Burns go into a conceptual NPC loop, because they can't deny that this is really truly what the Palestinians actually want, to wipe out Israel and force the Dzooz out of the Middle East:
مِنَ النَّهْرِ إلَى الْبَحْرِ • (mina n-nahri ʔilā l-baḥri) "from the ( Jordan) river to the ( Mediterranean) sea"
Dylan and Lonerbox pivot this back to a 2-State-Solution, when we've already been told by that UN insider that the UN, behind the scenes, no longer believes in a 2-State-Solution. Lonerbox and Dylan cannot process the idea that a 2-State-Solution is no longer on the table, and since they can't think for themselves, they just get stuck in a brain-dead loop where they both keep repeating
"2-State-Solution! 2-State-Solution! 2-State-Solution!" like a broken record. It's very sad to see these two young men, who have been utterly brain-fucked by their educational system out of the ability to thinking critically and to process & integrate new information, it's really sad to see them go into these loops. They literally cannot think outside of the box and come up with a new solution, something that isn't a "2-State-Solution".
None of them are willing to consider this question: when two parties sincerely don't want peace and want nothing more than to wage one final war that settles the matter once and for all... why should we (outsiders to the conflict) force solutions onto them that they don't want? If Israelis and Palestinians want to fight this one out to the death, why should we stop them?
I remember when the Russo-Ukrainian war started, there were so many of us saying: "Ukraine has a right to defend itself of course, but it really does look like Russia is the superior party here by a stretch, maybe it's better to negotiate a deal than to fight a losing war just for the fuck of it, and to come out of it worse than when you started.". Dylan and other NAFO bots rejected this, saying: "No, you don't get to decide when this war will end. Only the Ukrainians themselves get to decide when they want to end the war.". Why doesn't this principle extend to Israel? Doesn't Israel equally have the right to decide when it ends this war? Fucking hypocrites.
Lonerbox then claims that Israeli Zionists look
"unhinged" to Westerners (which only goes to show the liberal academic bubble that Lonerbox himself is stuck within):
I can assure you Lonerbox, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jiahd and their rabid zealous supporters look way more psycho and dangerous to Westerners than the average Israeli Zionist ever will. Zionists might sound zealous and delusional to Westerners (because who the fuck in their right mind would insist on living in the Middle East) but they aren't perceived as viscerally dangerous in the way that Jihadists are. No one getting on a plane with an Orthodox Zionist Dzoo ever suspects them of blowing up the plane. Now replace that Dzoo with an Isalmist looking Arab and every Westerner on the plane starts to get a little nervous, they can't even help it, it's a visceral reaction they have. If Westerners includes Europeans and not just Americans, then Europeans definitely fear Jihadists in a visceral way that doesn't remotely match the antisemitism of even the most virulent of European antisemites. The reason is that Europe, unlike the US, has been subjected to regular Jihadist attacks since 9/11. Europeans have suffered constant Islamist terrorism all over Europe in a way that Americans (outside of NYC or Boston) did not, so the Islamist terrorist threat is that much more accute and imminent to a European Westerner than it is to an American.
