And what makes you think that you are making a reasonable argument?

I'm not. I'm criticizing yours, where I perceive it to be lazy. I'm sorry, did I misunderstand the purpose of this thread? Wasn't it to put forward an argument from first principles that would eventually demonstrate that Israel's claim to the homeland was reasonable?

It's widely accepted that "African American" is a racial classification.

Right. And as I've said, the law can recognize categories that science denies is actual.

African Americans did not desire a homeland, they merely claimed civil rights, so your argument about displacing them is moot.

Oh? Are you sure about that? People actually did cross back over the ocean precisely because they did want something similar. Does it have to be a unanimous desire? Because keep in mind, even among Jews Zionism doesn't receive unanimous approval.

What's wrong with the present generation claiming something that belonged to their ancestors?

You're the one who started out purporting to give a reasonable argument. At key points in the argument, however, you're merely saying "well, what's wrong with the idea?" You're not putting out the necessary effort. You're skipping over the most basic part of your thesis, the idea that being distantly related to someone who lived in a place gives you any claim to that place. You can't simply say "well, what's wrong with that?"

Your argument has devolved into "what's wrong with that?", when you're supposed to be showing why it's reasonable. Just because something isn't wrong doesn't mean it's reasonable. I'm explicitly refusing to allow you to shift the burden. If you don't want to make your argument and instead want me to prove why it's wrong, then the thread becomes boring - it's just some guy saying "Jews are thumbs up!"