To accept liberality in personal relations while rejecting it as general principles appropriate for a society to follow suggests that some people can and/or must be presumed undeserving of its benefits. If it is an exclusive club, what are the admission criteria, and how were they created & agreed upon?

As for your remark about oppressive discrimination... I'm not going to get into a Who Was/Is Oppressed More game. History is littered with details of the various ways and times that mankind has divided and conquered each other so deeply that it's not worth sorting out unless one were planning to write a book about a particular example. My interest on the matter stems from the view that ALL such behavior is reprehensible anyway (there is no reason to treat others as lesser en masse. On top of the aggression involved, it erases individuality), so weighing X vs Y is besides the point.

No. They are deficient and unworthy because according to them they must oppress people to survive. It's like declaring oneself a cancer or a parasite.

To go back to the original example: there are Israeli politicians right now that call for evicting Palestinians by force, with any survivors forced to sign loyalty oaths to Israel as a Jewish State. Presumably these politicians feel that necessary for Israel's continued existence. I'm saying that such a justification is inherently invalid. Why should people who are not Jewish be expected to be loyal to an officially Jewish state when no one (other than white supremacists) would expect blacks to to be loyal to a slavery or segregation regime? How does the end of maintaining Israel -- or any other nation-state -- justify prejudice?

What CK said, for the most part.

By stating the oppression of others as needed, one undermines the construct they're arguing in favor of. Why should people who would be subject to its burden, or oppose applying such, be expected to recognize their claim to authority? Similar issue came up in the US with slavery, & then Jim Crow afterwards; there were people that said each were necessary, that they were around for an existential reason -- blacks and those opposed to our being enslaved & oppressed openly disobeyed those laws. That is in effect to condemn to ashes any state in which the argument from the defenders of those laws was correct.

Indeed I would say the same of other states. To any member of the ruling class of one of the Islamic theocracy regimes who said without forcing their favored interpretation of Islam the country could not survive, I'd say "then I'll happily watch it fall".

I admit that the odds of them trying the tactic of peace and equality isn't very likely...

While Freddie does appear to imply that a rich states oppression is morally different from that of a poor state, that doesn't discredit the entire account. Israel should change their policies not because of income, but because they are unjust.

Claims to the effect of "without those policies the state of Israel cannot survive" are, IMO, synonym for saying that the state of Israel should not survive. Any entity that requires the subjugation of others, justice roots for its failure.

This isn't to say that they're uniquely bad, mind you. If anything the shame is in being all too common. Hell, look at the expressions of solidarity some Palestinian folks have been sending all the way over here to occupied Missouri...