Well, hold on, you can't have this both ways.

I think the fairest way to describe "Jewishness" is as an ethnoreligion. Would you agree? Some Jews are Jewish by faith or conversion, others are Jewish by birth. But those who are Jewish by faith or conversion, aren't necessarily from an "ancient tribe of people." I could become Jewish if I wanted to. Or even if I just wanted to marry a Jewish woman.

So when we talk bout the Jewish people, when we talk about a homeland for people who were persecuted for generations, who are we actually talking about here? The idea of a land by birthright sounds very dubious. The idea of a land by religion sounds potentially even worse.

I didn't say it was "so bad" for a strip of land to be reserved for Jews. But if I think about it, yes, I think it's bad for a strip of land to be reserved for any religious or cultural group. Because it's trivial to see where that concept leads. Should England be "reserved" for white Anglo Saxons? Or even a strip of it? Should Christians in America be granted citizenship or movement rights that other denominations don't have? Should Zoroastrians and Pagans and Scientologists have their own homeland?

I understand that Jews have faced awful persecution over the centuries. I'm just not seeing the dots that connect that historical oppression with exclusive rights to a piece of land in perpetuity. If America stops being a majority Christian country, as it almost certainly will in a few decades, will we need to cut the Christians some slack? Will a portion of America need to be siloed off in perpetuity as a Christian homeland? This is the concept I'm not understanding.