This RW-Populist moral binary gig may be fine on a personal level but it does not translate to countries generally and the rule of law specifically.
That's why we have judges and juries and discretionary sentencing. eg: to kill a person may be: -State sanctioned....police shooting for whatever reason -self defence -manslaughter -murder etc Not one size fits all...eh?
So to say that a country's behaviour is good or bad, right or wrong (morally binary) works for many on a personal level but it rarely works on the level of geopolitics.
There are always differing interests, different powers, different interpretations of history, different motives etc etc etc.
The formation of the state of Israel has been complex and at times violent where many lives have been lost, neighbour trust wrecked and competing senses of who owns what and who ought to own what.
Even in Israel there is not unanimity on say settlers/settlements and the attitudes can range from 'its ours because this is "Biblical Judea" to "we ought not dispossess Palestinians because they have owned the land for over 1000 years.
For anyone that understands Zionism, it is easy to see that the conquest of biblical Jewish lands by whatever it takes has been a dream since 1896 and the real conquest started in 1905 led by mostly Ukrainian & Polish Jews who were the founders of today's agricultural Kibbutz This started a trend which today is called settlers who don't subscribe to the early communal/socialist principles of the early 20C Kibbutz but instead based on ancient theocratic/tribal principles.
By the end of WW1, Jewish people made up about about 2% of greater Palestine.
Of course many on these threads will likely see the UN Charter that formed the State Of Israel in 1948 and admitted into the UN in 1949 as the origin of Israel but that was gradually happening early 20th C ...particularly in the 1920s-30s during the British Mandate. Call the re-colonising of Palestine by mostly European Jews....eh?
