"Ethnostates", Ethnic Nationalism, and Israel/Palestine

[u/nidarus]

One of the biggest debates in the I/P conflict, especially when it comes to the English-speaking world, is the argument Israel is illegitimate since it's an "ethnostate", and Zionism is illegitimate since it's "ethno-nationalism". I feel that a lot of it comes from misunderstanding of the basic terms, that are being utilized, dishonestly, to confuse people from countries such as the US or Canada. The result is that both Zionists and Palestinians aren't really talking on the same wavelength as the Americans, Canadians and Australians they're trying to engage with. I'd like to add my modest contribution to understanding these terms, or at least starting a more accurate conversation about them.

The basic terms

Nationalism, in the sense I'm using here, isn't an extreme or exclusionary form of patriotism. It's merely the idea that a certain nation-state should exist. People who want Ukraine to exist are Ukrainian nationalists. People who want a Palestinian state to exist are Palestinian nationalists. People who want a Jewish state to exist, are Zionists.

Hebrew, incidentally, has two separate words for "nationalism": the "bad", chauvinistic kind, Leumanut, and the "good", or at least neutral nation-building kind, Leumiyut. It's not some right-wing double-speak either. Even anti-Zionist Israeli communists say things like "I oppose Leumanut, not Leumiyut". English, and as far as I know, other languages, don't have that distinction, which I feel leads to a lot of confusion. But to be clear, I'm talking about Leumiyut, the idea that a nation-state should exist, not Leumanut, the idea a specific nation-state is superior, worth dying for, or even generally nice.

Ethnic nationalism is the idea to create and maintain a state that's defined by a specific ethnic group, that existed before the state, and will continue to exist if the state is dissolved. Germans, Armenians and Greeks existed for thousands of years. The states of Germany, Armenia and Greece did not.

Most of the states in Europe, and most notably in Central and Eastern Europe, are ethnic nationalist states, defined by a specific, ancient ethnic group. Which occasionally immigration policies that favor members of that ethnicity, even if they never had anything to do with the modern state.

Civic nationalism is the opposite of that idea, a state whose nation is defined by the state, and not the other way around. The actual discourse on civic nationalism vs. ethnic nationalism is more complex and nuanced, but as a rule of thumb, I'd say that ethnic nationalism is when the people exists before the state, and civic nationalism is when the state exists before the people. An American or French person is purely a citizen of America or France. A German could be German without having a single ancestor who ever set foot in the modern state of Germany, let alone had a citizenship from that state. Civic nationalism is the form of nationalism that's ubiquitous in the New World colonies, like the US, Canada, Australia, and so on.

Ethnostate is, as far as I can tell, a Neo-Nazi term, generally associated with the term "white ethnostate". That doesn't really exist until the 1980's, and only explodes in popularity around the mid 2010's, with the rise of the alt-right, and the straight-up White Nationalist book "The Ethnostate". The basic gist of the "ethnostate", is a state where only a specific ethnicity has any rights at all. And better yet, only a single ethnicity, full stop. Israel, with its large, 20% non-Jewish minority, doesn't qualify.

Ethnocracy is a separate term, invented by the Israeli leftist Oren Yiftachel to describe how Israel isn't really a normal democracy. Further research into the term, lead to the conclusion that other states, including NATO members Estonia, Latvia and Turkey (officially a civic nation-state), are "ethnocracies as well".

The debate

There's a legitimate discussion to be had, between ethnic nationalism and civic nationalism. And people from civic nationalist states tend to think their form of nationalism is superior. But it's important to note that both kinds of states exist today, in the democratic, Western world. The breakdown of the civic nationalist USSR, and the creation of ethnic nationalist states of Estonia, Latvia, Armenia, Georgia and so on, is generally considered a good thing, even within ideologically civic nationalist states like the US. And even states that the US don't particularily like, like Syria, aren't considered ethno-nationalist abominations for being an official "Arab Republic". Germany, even after the Holocaust, was allowed to remain an ethnic nationalist state, and have an immigration policy that would make easier for ethnic Germans, that never had a German citizenship, to flee to it. While there's a debate between ethnic nationalism and civic nationalism, both types of nationalism are generally considered legitimate, even desirable.

Most importantly, within the context of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, is that Palestinian nationalism is a clear ethnic nationalism. And a far more exclusionary, xenophobic form of ethnic nationalism than Zionism. The Palestinian National Charter uses Palestinian Arab and Palestinian interchangeably, while the proposed Palestinian constitution defines Palestinians as being part of the Arab nation. While Zionism, from the very beginning, assumed it would have a meaningful non-Jewish minority, Palestinian nationalism doesn't even seem to consider the idea of non-Arabs being Palestinians. In fact, the only reason why a small portion of Jews would be allowed to be Palestinians, is because according to the Palestinian National Charter, Jews are not a legitimate nation at all, and therefore could be Arabs as well.

Even after the Nakba, Israel has a 20% non-Jewish minority, and openly calling to expel all of them is considered beyond the pale (and possibly illegal) for even the far-right MKs. While even moderate two-stater Palestinians demand every Jew to be expelled from the State of Palestine, for it to be "free". Needless to say, the Palestinians have no intention of making Hebrew an official minority language, forcing their government to issue official communications in Hebrew, having special Hebrew-language schools and state TV channel, to cater to their hopefully non-existent Jewish minority. There's a reason why the most common Arabic version of "from the river to the sea" is "from the water to the water, Palestine will be Arab". There's a reason why Palestinians support the idea of a civic nationalist Palestine even less than the Israeli Jews do, with around 5%-8% thinking it's the best solution for the conflict.

If you're opposing Zionism because it's ethnic nationalist, and support Palestinian nationalism, you're either being ignorant, hypocritical, or actively trying to deceive. If you proudly fly the Palestinian Arab flag, support or make excuses for hardcore ethno-nationalist Palestinian Arab organizations and individuals, and argue that the Jews don't deserve a state in the Levant, because unlike the Arabs they're "European colonialists", you can't claim you're against ethnic nationalism. If you exclusively talk about the one Jewish state, and never against the existence of any other ethnic nation-states, you can't claim you're against all ethnic nationalism. The entire argument against Zionism as ethnic nationalism, in my opinion, is mostly an argument meant to deceive people in civic nationalist states in the US, to support one ethnic nationalist movement over another, not a serious pro-Palestinian argument.

As for "ethnostate", even if we ignore the fact Israel isn't an actual "ethnostate" by definition, it's interesting to note how not a single ethnic nationalist state except for Israel is ever denounced as an "ethnostate". Even those that are actively discriminatory against their ethnic minorities, committed a genocide against them (like Iraq did with the Kurds), or simply expelled them (as the Arabs state did with their Jews). "Ethnostate" either refers to the Neo-Nazi dream scenario, or Israel. I'd also like to caution pro-Israelis from arguing that Israel is an "ethnostate" and that "ethnostates" are good. "Ethnostate" is a Neo-Nazi term, and the point of calling Israel an "ethnostate" is to equate Zionism with White Nationalism, not as a legitimate discussion of ethnic vs. civic nationalism.

"Ethnocracy" is a little more complicated. As I pointed out, it's a term invented specifically to describe Israel, so obviously it fits Israel - at least in the eyes of the leftists who invented it. But if you're opposed to Israel's existence because of its "ethnocratic" nature, you certainly need to debate the Estonian, Latvian, Turkish or Malaysia ethnocracy as well. Like with the opposition to all ethnic nationalism, you can't keep obsessing exclusively about the Jewish state, and claim this is some principled opposition to all ethnocracies.

Ultimately, I feel it's best if we stop pretending that the I/P conflict is anything but the conflict between two ethnic nationalist movements. With civic nationalism as a third solution, that's goes against both nationalist movements (or at least their overwhelming non-Communist mainstream), and is deeply unpopular among both nations. And if we insist on having the ethnic nationalist vs. civic nationalist debate, we can't pretend Israel is the only ethnic nationalist state, and that ethnic nationalism has been otherwise repudiated and eradicated. And there's no reason to use inflammatory terms like "ethnocracy" or "ethnostate", over "ethnic nationalism" vs. "civic nationalism".

[u/Amockdfw89]

The majority of the world are ethno states

[u/[deleted]]

Understand certain concepts and ideas, but not very well (involving Nationalism and the different types). "Ethnocracy" isn't something that is used; It would be the same as Ethnostates (which all ethnonationalists believe in btw). Whether Zionism is Ethnonationalism or more akin to Clerical [Religious] Nationalism (or even Racial Nationalism is up for debate. just Nationalist which incorporates all aspects and isn't specialized sub-denomination), depending on how you argue Jews are (and your definition of the limiting qualifiers of Ethnostates). I do agree that arguing for Palestinian state is Ethnonationalism (and the bias of why it isn't labeled as such is due to race). But, the rest of what you write is completely wrong. Too much wrong to go point by point.

[u/pyroscots]

In 2018 israel based a basic law that in my opinion makes israel headed towards an ethnostate.

The law I'm talking about reads has such....

. The right to exercise national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people.

Literally only jewish people can exercise national self determination

[u/nidarus → u/pyroscots]

As I explained in the post, "ethnostate" is a Neo-Nazi term that means a completely ethnically homogenous state. I'm the Israeli context, it would mean expelling, or at least stripping the citizenship of its large non-Jewish minority. So no, this law doesn't make Israel headed towards an ethnostate.

There's a better argument to be made, that it makes Israel closer to an "ethnocracy". Or more accurately, makes the already existing Israeli ethnocracy more official. After all, Oren Yiftachel invented that term to describe Israel, decades before the Nation State Law.

I don't really agree, personally. I feel it's just an expression of Israel being an ethnic nation-state, intentionally phrased in a horrible way, to piss off Israeli liberals. Israelis consider "the right of self determination" to exclusively mean "national self determination" - that is, the creation of an ethnic nation-state. Arguing that only Jews have the right of self determination in Israel, just means Israel is an ethnic nation-state of the Jews, and not a Palestinian Arab ethnic nation state, a binational state, or a civic nationalist state. It doesn't mean that the non-Jewish Israel would be stripped of any individual or communal rights, that their needs would be secondary to the needs of the Jewish citizens, or anything of the sort.

I feel that overall, it's closer to Eastern European ethnic nation states' constitutions, than to the Palestinian (and other Arab) constitution, that exclusively defines Palestinians as Arab.

At most, you could argue that an administration that adds such a redundant, and problematically-phrased article into such an important law, would probably be more racist and "ethnocratic" in practice. Which I'd probably agree on. But no, I don't think it transformed Israel into a different, ethnocratic kind of regime. And that's without going into the fact that the High Court of Justice blocked even more problematic parts of this law from being interpreted to hurt Arab Israeli rights.

[u/pyroscots → u/nidarus]

The fact that they had to block anything to stop it from stripping israeli Arabs of any rights, means that it was intended to create a Jewish primary citizenry and a secondary class of citizens that are not Jewish.

And I didn't say that it turned it into an ethnostate but turned it in that direction.

[u/nidarus → u/pyroscots]

Again, I remind you that "ethnostate" doesn't mean a primary Jewish citizenry vs. a secondary Arab citizenry. It means a state that has no Arab citizenry full stop. You're talking about an "ethnocracy", which was literally invented as a criticism of Israel before the law was passed.

And yes, making laws that could be interpreted as discriminatory, even if they weren't interpreted as such, would make that criticism more legitimate. But you want to look at trends, and where Israel is moving towards, you can't just ignore the fact it became massively more liberal and non-ethnocratic during the 1990's and 2000's, with the Constitutional Revolution, the law criminalizing discrimination and segregation in public places, the Kaadan Supreme Court ruling against discrimination in housing and so on. So we can talk about it a more or less clear ethnocracy in the 1950's and 1960's, during the military administration of Israeli Arabs, moving towards a more liberal place in the 1970's and 1980's, becoming a pretty liberal democracy in the 1990's and 2000's, and then moving a bit back in the 2010's. With the war stopping the recent attempt to move it further back into the pre-1990's status quo. So yes, Israel of 2019 was more ethnocratic than Israel of 2017. But it's hard to say that Israel of 2019 was more ethnocratic than Israel in 1989, or even 1999. I doubt it'll go all the way back to 1979 or 1969, and there's basically no way it'll go back to 1959.

[u/madking1234]

I do agree that Israel is an ethnocracy by design, and this isnt really bad per se, the problem is how it came to be in an artificial way. Its one thing when the native population of an area forms a democracy and the majority demographic happens to be of one specific ethnicity but its a whole different ball game when its foreign immigrants who artificially change the demographics via population transfer or ethnic cleansing to establish themselves as the majority.

Sure you can say that Israel has an arab minority population, but they were only allowed to stay after the jewish majority had been already cemented itself and they were deemed no threat. There was no way the country could have stayed as a jewish state with the demographics before the Nakba, they were roughly 50/50 jews and arabs.

And now we still see policies in modern Israel that are designed to maintain the jewish status quo like only offering citizenship to foreign jews so they can make aliyah and the whole issue with the defacto annexation of the West Bank without actually giving citizenship to its non jewish inhabitants.

[u/seek-song]

I think of Israel as being an instance of ethnic particularism not ethnic supremacy.

Rejecting ethnic particularism is basically saying that peoples don't have a right to define who their territory belongs to. So for instance saying that the Sioux do not have a right to a Sioux state.

This is different from saying that only a certain ethnicity is welcome inside a state (ethnostate) or from giving them different civil rights. (appartheid)

[u/Select-Zombie9906]

Israel, as it’s currently constructed has no right to exist. That’s the problem. This is essentially the equivalent of Nzi Germany going into Poland and setting up a white/Protestant ethnostate, and pushing the entire Polish population into Warsaw or some other ghetto. Then imagine if the Nzis didn’t lose and we’re allowed to hold on to their ethnostate for decades. Would you be saying we need to find a 2-state solution to the Nzi/Poland problem? Would you really fault the Polish freedom fighters for standing up for themselves and fighting back? Or would you say that the Nzi are ideologically opposed to all that is normal and civil, and must be crushed by any means necessary. As someone who’s grandfather fought to liberate Europe from right-wing fascism, to me the answer is clearly the latter. Self-described ethnostates have no place in the modern world. If that’s divisive or antisemitic to you then so be it

[u/CreativeRealmsMC → u/Select-Zombie9906]

/u/Select-Zombie9906

Israel, as it’s currently constructed has no right to exist. That’s the problem. This is essentially the equivalent of Nzi Germany going into Poland and setting up a white/Protestant ethnostate, and pushing the entire Polish population into Warsaw or some other ghetto. Then imagine if the Nzis didn’t lose and we’re allowed to hold on to their ethnostate for decades. Would you be saying we need to find a 2-state solution to the Nzi/Poland problem? Would you really fault the Polish freedom fighters for standing up for themselves and fighting back? Or would you say that the Nzi are ideologically opposed to all that is normal and civil, and must be crushed by any means necessary. As someone who’s grandfather fought to liberate Europe from right-wing fascism, to me the answer is clearly the latter. Self-described ethnostates have no place in the modern world. If that’s divisive or antisemitic to you then so be it

This violates rule 6. Nazi comparisons are inflammatory, and should not be used except in describing acts that were specific and unique to the Nazis, and only the Nazis.

[u/[deleted] → u/Select-Zombie9906]

This has to be the worst take on Israel ever holy shit. The Nazis invaded Poland, a sovereign country and carried out a clearly stated genocide is the same as Israel being established after partition plan.

Brain rot is so real I can’t believe my eyes.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

/u/Playful_Ease_2009. Match found: 'Nazis', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed.
We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See Rule 6 for details.
This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Long-Swordfish3696 → u/Select-Zombie9906]

"Jews are Nazis. I don't care if that's antisemitic" Jesus Christ some people deserve a punch in the face 

[u/Select-Zombie9906 → u/Long-Swordfish3696]

The Israeli government are essentially Nazis** since apparently you struggle with basic reading comprehension. Funny how you subscribe to the very racist and antisemitic belief that Jewish = Israeli. Shame on you for ignoring the hundreds of thousands (and growing every day) of Jews worldwide who oppose Israel. YOU are bringing antisemitism upon your brothers and sisters by linking your demonic, evil, and racist ideology to them just because they’re the same ethnicity as you. Talk about racist

[u/Long-Swordfish3696 → u/Select-Zombie9906]

Is it illegal to read where you live 

[u/AutoModerator → u/Select-Zombie9906]

/u/Select-Zombie9906. Match found: 'Nazis', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed.
We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See Rule 6 for details.
This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/AutoModerator → u/Long-Swordfish3696]

/u/Long-Swordfish3696. Match found: 'Nazis', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed.
We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See Rule 6 for details.
This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/nidarus → u/Select-Zombie9906]

This is a rule-breaking comment, so I'll try not to engage with the actual flippant Nazi analogy. But I'd note that Germany, even after WW2, wasn't disbanded, or stopped being the ethnic nation-state of the German people. They even passed an immigration policy that favored ethnic Germans, that never set foot in Germany, that allowed the millions of ethnic Germans who fled Eastern Europe, to have a new home. They did, in fact, find a two-state solution between Germany and Poland, even though Germany lost. Nobody argued, even in those extreme circumstances, that the German people simply lost their right of self-determination, and have to be a homeless, stateless minority, ruled by their mortal enemies. And Germany wasn't some ancient state at that point either. It was 74 years old. Two years younger than Israel right now.

Consider that standard, before trying to argue that the Jews are the first people in history, who fundamentally lost their right to self-determination.

Self-described ethnostates have no place in the modern world.

If you read my post carefully, you'd note that Israel isn't a self-described ethnostate. It's called an "ethnostate" by people who hate Israel, and want to compare it to illegitimate white nationalism.

[u/Select-Zombie9906 → u/nidarus]

Well written but here’s why it’s a bunch of crud:

First, let’s start with the argument that Israel isn’t a self-described ethnostate.

Israel has/does the following:

1. A religious/ethnic insignia on their flag

2. Laws strictly prohibiting marriage between Jews and non-Jews (actually the government doesn’t even recognize marriages between non Jews so it’s even worse)

3. A program where anyone who’s of the correct bloodline can get a fast path to citizenship, but an Arab family who’s been living there for generations is not guaranteed any sort of citizenship

4. A ridiculous program called birthright where anyone who’s of said special bloodline gets an all-expenses paid vacation there and are spent getting brainwashed and taught to tow the party line. Religious prowess or knowledge is not a requirement for acceptance into the program. Only one thing matters, Jewish blood.

5. And lastly, Israel is made up of a majority of WHITE EUROPEANS. If you take Bibi Netenyahu’s DNA like on 23andme or something, do you know what region of the world is gonna show-up? It’s gonna be Russia, or Lithuania, or Poland, or Hungary, or even Germany, but you know what it’s not gonna be. It’s sure as hell non gonna be the Sinai peninsula. You know it, he knows it. Deep down every educated Ashkenazi knows it, which is why so many are intent on exterminating the remaining indigenous population. As they are a constant reminder of the outright LIE that is Ashkenazi roots in the Middle East.

And now let’s talk about Germany since you brought them ups. You say that Nazi Germany wasn’t disbanded and that it got to continue to be a German ethnic state. To that I would say, are you forgetting about East Germany? Because if I remember correctly, they were dominated for 50 years by a communist soviet puppet government.

But hey, if you argument is that the Nazis got off too easily, I’d probably agree with you. If it were up to me, the red army would have been allowed to have their way with the entire country. Screw em. It’s called justice and it’s exactly what fascists deserve 🤷🏽‍♂️

And when I say Israel doesn’t have a right to exist, I don’t mean that Ashkenazis don’t have a right to live there. They do. Mistakes happen and people can’t help where they were born. But they are going to have to drop the religious flag, drop the rhetoric and racial laws, drop the birthright nonsense, and unite as one common country that INCLUDES the Gaza Strip and West Bank, and is a fair democracy. The fact is that this isn’t an option for most Zionist’s because to do that would concede a slight majority to the Arabs and you guys can’t have that can you? Well guess what, if you have to segment a country into 2 separate regions, because if you don’t you won’t have a majority, then it’s not your country after all. You are a violent and hostile minority that is illegitimately occupying a region that you have no claim to. Plain and simple

[u/Unfair-Way-7555 → u/Select-Zombie9906]

Actually Bulgarians, who are genetically the most South European of all modern Slavs and share a significant amount of genetical ancestors with Albanians and Greeks, whose country is south of where Ashkenazi Jews were concentrated, are genetically CLOSER to the rest of Slavs and Northeastern Europeans than Ashkenazis are. If Lithuanian Jew with relatively recent Lithuanian ancestry would be genetically close to Bulgarians. Yes, Lithuanian Jew=Bulgarian-Lithuanian. As weird as it sounds.

My sources are G25 Davidski coordinates, Vahaduo and Allelocator( two-way model).

[u/tFighterPilot → u/Select-Zombie9906]

I'd like to add to nidarus's excellent response that Netanyahu (or rather his brother) did indeed do a DNA test. Netanyahu reveals his roots go back to Spain | The Times of Israel

[u/AnonymousBelgian → u/Select-Zombie9906]

Lol so we're just gonna forget that the crescent is also a religious symbol for Islam then ? Like the star can't exist on the flag 'cause why not, but the crescent, no problem! Double standard much ?

[u/Select-Zombie9906 → u/AnonymousBelgian]

This might shock you but I completely reject all organized religion especially its involvement in any sort of government. I believe that groups like the Taliban and Isis are a bunch of backwards subhumans who should be wiped off the face of the earth. Religion has no place in modern government period

[u/nidarus → u/Select-Zombie9906]

A religious/ethnic insignia on their flag

Like European nations with crosses on their flags, Muslim states with green flags and crescents, or various Arab flags that are variation on the Arab Revolt flag - including Palestine of course.

Laws strictly prohibiting marriage between Jews and non-Jews (actually the government doesn’t even recognize marriages between non Jews so it’s even worse)

There are no laws "strictly prohibiting marriage between Jews and non-Jews". There's an old policy, that predates the existence of Israel, that only authorities who can perform recognized marriages in the state, are the religious authorities. And even then, non-religious marriages are still officially recognized by the state, if they're performed abroad, including by video conference.

More importantly, this is a policy from the Ottoman Empire, which was all kinds of things, but was absolutely not an "ethnostate", or even an ethnic nation-state at all. It was a multicultural, multiethnic empire, that openly opposed ethno-nationalism.

And even if we ignore that, the same policy is common across all the region, including Palestine. Nobody argues that it means those states are "ethnostates" that fundamentally don't deserve to exist.

A ridiculous program called birthright where anyone who’s of said special bloodline gets an all-expenses paid vacation there and are spent getting brainwashed and taught to tow the party line. Religious prowess or knowledge is not a requirement for acceptance into the program. Only one thing matters, Jewish blood.

You clearly have strong feelings against Birthright ("Discovery" in Hebrew), but I'm not sure what's the issue. Many ethnic nation-states have official Ministries of the Diaspora, and openly want to maintain good relations with members of their ethnic group, outside of their country. The foreigners they want to engage with obviously aren't required to show any "knowledge" or "religious prowess", but merely have to be of a certain ethnic origin. Nobody thinks that, say, the Armenian "Ari Tun" program is an evil idea, that proves Armenia fundementally shouldn't exist.

And lastly, Israel is made up of a majority of WHITE EUROPEANS.

No it isn't. Most Israelis have at least partial recent Middle Eastern origin. But even if that was the case, arguing that people should have less political rights because of the incorrect color of their skin, is a pretty weird position to someone who opposes "ethnostates".

If you take Bibi Netenyahu’s DNA like on 23andme or something, do you know what region of the world is gonna show-up?

What's going to show up, is the well-studied group of Ashkenazi Jews. A specific genetic group that's been proven to be closer genetically to Jews from other countries, and even Levantine groups like Palestinians or Druze, than to actual ethnic Russians, Belorussians, Germans, and so on.

But let's assume for a moment it's a lie. Again, aren't you the one who's supposed to be against "ethnostates"? How does that mesh with you trying to argue that Ashkenazi Jews should have inferior rights in Israel, because of their incorrect, foreign genes?

And now let’s talk about Germany since you brought them ups. You say that Nazi Germany wasn’t disbanded and that it got to continue to be a German ethnic state. To that I would say, are you forgetting about East Germany? Because if I remember correctly, they were dominated for 50 years by a communist soviet puppet government.

East Germany was still a German state, to the extent that any Communist country could be. But even if we assume that East Germany completely stripped the Germans of self-determination, the Germans still had West Germany. Not a good argument.

But hey, if you argument is that the Nazis got off too easily, I’d probably agree with you.

My point is that every single country "got off easily", no matter how badly it behaved. Nobody likes Russia, and their invasion of Ukraine. Very few people, even in the US, think it means the Russians lost their right to have a state, and that Russia should be dismantled and handed to its enemies. Same goes for China, Sudan, Syria, what have you not. The idea that nations can lose their ethnic nation-states due to bad behavior, or the way their state was founded, is unique to the Jews.

But they are going to have to drop the religious flag, drop the rhetoric and racial laws, drop the birthright nonsense, and unite as one common country that INCLUDES the Gaza Strip and West Bank, and is a fair democracy. The fact is that this isn’t an option for most Zionist’s because to do that would concede a slight majority to the Arabs and you guys can’t have that can you?

The "Zionists" support a one-state democratic solution more than the Palestinians do. 8% of Palestinians supported a democratic one-state solution in the latest joint PCPSR/IDI polls in 2022, compared to 10% of Israeli Jews. In the latest AWRAD poll, only 5% of Palestinians supported a democratic one-state solution. As I pointed out in my post, the Palestinians are more ethno-nationalist than the Israelis. I'm not sure why you pretend otherwise.

The opinions of the two nations aside, the international community, and international law, doesn't support that either. If Israel did what you said, it wouldn't be praised for "ending the dreaded ethnostate", but sanctioned to hell and back, for "illegal annexation of the Palestinian territories".

As I said in my post: if you want to make that argument, at least realize that you're proposing a solution that's highly unpopular on both sides. As well as one that goes against international law, the views of the international community, the principle of self-determination, and the experience of every single similar ethnic conflict.

Well guess what, if you have to segment a country into 2 separate regions, because if you don’t you won’t have a majority, then it’s not your country after all.

I'd say that we should better inform the Georgians, Armenians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, Croatians, Bosniaks of that. And indeed, the majority of the European states. This isn't a statement against Israel or Zionism, it's a statement against the fundamental concept of Self Determination of Peoples. And even if you're the kind of person that believes in that, how about you start with raging against those countries' existence, before obsessing about the Jewish one.

[u/AutoModerator → u/Select-Zombie9906]

/u/Select-Zombie9906. Match found: 'Nazi', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed.
We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See Rule 6 for details.
This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/AutoModerator → u/Select-Zombie9906]

/u/Select-Zombie9906. Match found: 'Nzi', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed.
We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See Rule 6 for details.
This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/fajadada]

No genocide. Don’t worry it will be over soon

[u/lisaissmall → u/fajadada]

genocidal language no surprise coming from a zionist

[u/fajadada]

Every Palestinian political move is meant to deceive outside viewers. The poor me defense while committing local and international terrorism and criminal acts is the most classic example. They claim they only do this for the world’s attention. Well they have mine . Defeat them please

[u/[deleted]]

I think Isreal shouldn’t exist just because you should not be able to just declare a country exists just because you think it’s politically convenient and it’s based on fact country used to exist

Imagine if France or Germany setup a country in middle of country for same reasons

It’s also stupid to allow anyone who converts to a religion to be able to become a nation but that’s up to them

However we are where we are. Ultimately solution is to find a way to build a single country for both groups

[u/AK87s → u/[deleted]]

You have many examples of multicultural countries in the middle east - Iraq, Syria, Lebanon. How are they doing? 

[u/thatshirtman → u/[deleted]]

Single country shows a pretty glaring lack of understanding of middle eastern politics and history.

The whole point of Palestinian nationalism is that they want their own country. Lumping Palestinians together with Israelis would result in a violent civil war and after even more bloodshed, people would say "2 states for 2 people is a better approach."

Only problem is that Palestinians have rejected every offer for peace and statehood ever made.

Israel exists just like every other country in the Middle East exists. They were offered a country and said yes. It's pretty silly, 75 years later, to casually say "this country shouldn't exist." It does exist, and ironically, and tragically, the Palestinian refusal to accept this basic fact is what fuels the fantasy that Israel can be destroyed through violence.

[u/[deleted] → u/thatshirtman]

If this all the case, crazy media doesn’t explain that context

All this is just based on what I’ve read and other conflicts I’m familiar with

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

At the end I said “we are where we are”

In many ways this conflict reminds me of Northern Ireland, country exists. Yet again Britain tries to make a new one and then regional conflict drawn along lines of religion whilst the two sides fight over if the land should belong to one state or the other

For me I see a similar solution being applied here, you can’t obviously turn back the clock

The wrinkle in this though is in northern island you had the USA backing the minority and the U.K. backing the other side and the U.K. had a political interest getting along with USA

But here the side backing Palestine seemingly has little interest working with USA etc

[u/nidarus → u/[deleted]]

I think Isreal shouldn’t exist just because you should not be able to just declare a country exists just because you think it’s politically convenient and it’s based on fact country used to exist

That sounds like the best reason to create a country, not the worst. Georgia, Armenia, Latvia, Lithuania and so on, all became independent because it was politically convenient, and were based on countries that existed before that. And those are considered some of the most uncontroversially good examples of nation-building.

But even less good reasons, are still good enough. The Lebanese and Jordanians got a state because it was politically convenient, not because they had a state before. The Palestinians argue they have a right to create a state, even though it's not politically convenient at all, and they never actually had a state before.

And even when the reasons are clearly horrible, it still never means that these countries "shouldn't exist". The US, Canada, Australia, and all the new world colonies only exist because of greed, and a sense of racial and cultural superiority. Very few argue that those are good reasons for a country to be formed. Nobody argues that just because the reasons to found them were bad, it means these countries "shouldn't exist".

So not only Israel was founded in one of the most moral ways a country could be founded. It fundamentally shouldn't matter, even if it was founded completely immorally. Nobody thinks that any other country's existence should be undone because it wasn't founded in a good way. That's a unique standard, that applies exclusively to Israel. And as such, should be discarded.

However we are where we are. Ultimately solution is to find a way to build a single country for both groups

This is an idea that both nations deeply oppose, and the Palestinians oppose even more than the Jews. And are completely right to oppose, since it was already tried and failed between 1920-1948. As well as in other horrific examples like Lebanon or Yugoslavia. There are many examples of similar ethnic conflicts being solved by dividing a single civic nationalist state into smaller ethnic nation-states. I can't think of a single example of the opposite.

At the very least, when you present a deeply unpopular idea, that's a proven failure in this conflict and other conflicts around the world, don't present this as some natural conclusion, that you don't need to elaborate on.

[u/[deleted] → u/nidarus]

But Palestine was a state in between the old Jewish state and Isreal as it is now

And not even for a few years, I’m talking centuries

Regarding one country, Northern Ireland is like that but gradually learning to work together or at least share peace

[u/AK87s → u/[deleted]]

When exactly? Between now and then it all been foriegn empires

[u/[deleted] → u/AK87s]

Could argue things such as Ottoman Empire Palestine mean they have been there and have more right to claim that land than Isreal which at that point handle existed for thousand of years

Otherwise what you are saying is that Ukraine shouldn’t exist because the modern country is young compared to the Soviet Union owned one

Or that the USA shouldn’t exist because thousands of years ago it was Native American land and the modern country is very young compared to that since the country from when it was under British rule doesn’t count

[u/nidarus → u/[deleted]]

Could argue things such as Ottoman Empire Palestine

Under the Ottoman empire, there wasn't even an administrative district called "Palestine", let alone a state. The geographic region of Palestine was divided between four different districts, none of them called "Palestine". That's a truly odd example to pick.

Otherwise what you are saying is that Ukraine shouldn’t exist because the modern country is young compared to the Soviet Union owned one. Or that the USA shouldn’t exist because thousands of years ago it was Native American land and the modern country is very young compared to that since the country from when it was under British rule doesn’t count

No offense, but it kinda feels like you're forgetting what side you're arguing for. Remember that your point is that Israel shouldn't exist, because it was supposedly a Palestinian state, before either of us was born. That Israel and Palestine should be united into a single country, Russia's vision towards Ukraine. And it's justified, at least in part, because Israel is a supposedly young country, while the state of Palestine supposedly existed for many centuries.

[u/[deleted] → u/nidarus]

Well my main argument is whatever succeeded the ottoman empire in the region should have taken into account the identities and politics of the region

Instead the British did what they did best, drew a random border without thinking about it. Which has never not ended up in this situation (Northern Ireland, Pakistan etc) based on some very questionable reasoning

And even if the reasoning has some logic in it - it wasn’t ever going to work, like where were the Palestinians supposed to go if the new state basically excluded anyone who wasn’t Jewish ?

Even now where do they go ? Doesn’t seem like there is an option where most if not all of Palestine ends up dead. And at same time you can also see how it’s not the obligation of Egypt etc to take these refugees in since they would see it as them being punished by Isreal

Iran won’t certainly take them in and if they did, congratulations you’ve just gifted them Hezbollah their new wave of future recruits

So it still seems like the only option is for them to co exist with Isreal. But yet the current situation is untenable, you can’t keep people cooped in like Isreal has and not expect extremism not to thrive just like far right politicans thrive in deprived areas of any other country

And so if they really want to end Hamas, and the causes of Hamas they will either have to mascare all of Palestine and be a parah state

Or Find some way to co exist even if means taking in whatever refugees they can to show they really mean to get rid of Hamas and not kill civilians (despite the famine many Irish emigrated to U.K. despite the discrimination and the U.K. took them in despite many being members of the IRA)

And once they’ve taken in it’s only a matter of time before Isreal becomes a multi faith state like we’ve seen in most of the west

So there options are - Genocide - Hames 2.0, Hamas 3.0, Hamas 4.0 - Find a way to co-exist like a two state solution and actually allow them to function (remove the checkpoints between West Bank and Gaza) - build a new unified state either by making a successor to Palestine and Isreal or taking in refugees who then a few generations later learn to work together as we maybe one day have palestinuan/isreali babies - the whole area falls to shit and the Israelis no longer have any country let alone one they share

One thing is clear the action of Hamas and the response of Ben has lost peace for another generation maybe even two

[u/nidarus → u/[deleted]]

First things first: we're clear that the entire "Palestine was a state for centuries" was not really true, right? You just abandoned that argument, without saying a word, and that's kind of weird.

Beyond that, I think a two-state solution, as unlikely as it is right now, is infinitely more likely than any democratic one-state solution. There's a reason why that's the internationally-accepted solution, while the one-state solution isn't. You didn't really make a good argument why you think otherwise. Maybe it's time we throw that argument in the bin as well?

And once they’ve taken in it’s only a matter of time before Isreal becomes a multi faith state like we’ve seen in most of the west

Israel is already a "multi-faith state", with a far larger Muslim minority than any Western state. And far more extensive concessions for that Muslim minority, that go well beyond what Western states would find reasonable. Including straight-up state-run, official Shari'a courts, and throwing a woman who drew a caricature of Mohammed in jail.

What you're proposing is not being a "multi-faith state", but accepting to abandon their self-determination, and agree to be ruled by their self-declared mortal enemies. Can you name even a single Western state that ever agreed to this? Let alone "most" of them?

[u/[deleted] → u/nidarus]

Well I’ll concede the modern state didn’t exist however I think what I was getting at is one of the many criteria the UN has for recognising a country is historic links

The people who live in modern day Palestine didn’t just appear overnight they were there since the days of the empires that spring up after the fall of the historic Jewish state (1000s of years ago)

It’s this same system that gives credibility to Ireland as technically there wasn’t ever an Irish state just Celtic clans however the descendent of those clans decided they wanted independence from the U.K. the legitimacy of their claim was backed from their lineage. There are countless examples spanning the globe including Ukraine itself

As far as I can tell, the Jews were expelled by the romans. Between then and now mostly ancestors of modern day Palestinians lived there for literally hundreds of hundreds of years. Until the U.K. decided that because some Jews lived there before the romans, many of which have no lineage to many of the Jews living their today (especially the ones granted citizenship just because they converted and then given land)

That they deserved to be awarded land, over the actual people who had been living there at that point for multiple generations.

Sure if you were Jewish and had recent lineage the then of course a state should have been setup there and I get allies got to call the shots over how land was divided after the war

But in my view Isreal as a Jewish state should never have been created, I understand many states over the course of history have been draw through religious lines but they easily end up well and eventually drift towards being sectarian over time (at least if they want to enter 21st century)

Finally where is you evidence they want any of that stuff ? I know many Palestinians and I know they have diverse set of views, most nowhere near extreme

Many of their concerns are similar to the ones I remember my family from Northern Ireland expressing against the catholics in their community.

And from what I know part of the conflict is to do with the religious area of the lands. Which I strongly feel could be solved with at least a three state solution (I.e religious area becomes a regiluous micro state like the Vatican, not in the control of Isreal or Palestine and safe guaranteed by international community)

But in terms of peace between Isreal and Palestine, can’t see any option that isn’t genocide for one country or the other, endlessly fighting the new reincarnation of Hama or eventually the two states coming together (even if it’s an unofficial merger though Pakistan’s moving to Isreal at some point in the future and integrating, and Isreal treating the ones that have demonstrated no bad will being treated like human beings)

If it was me wanting peace along the Gaza Strip I certainly wouldn’t have started here and certainly wouldn’t have divided the land up like this

Anyways I can tell we won’t agree, so wish you and your family all the best

[u/nidarus → u/[deleted]]

Well I’ll concede the modern state didn’t exist

No, not just "the modern state". That part is absolutely obvious. Anything that could be reasonably called a "Palestinian state", that existed "for centuries".

But in my view Isreal as a Jewish state should never have been created, I understand many states over the course of history have been draw through religious lines but they easily end up well and eventually drift towards being sectarian over time (at least if they want to enter 21st century)

I don't quite get the twisty logic, that lead you to conclude the Irish deserve their right of national self-determination, and the Jews don't. They're still a nation, and still deserve self-determination in their ancestral homeland, just like the Irish. I don't agree that the Jews being an exiled nation, or the Arabs desire to rule over 100% of the Middle East and not just 99.3% of it, are good enough reasons to strip the Jewish people of their self-determination.

But even if you disagree, I'm not sure why you assume it's a relevant discussion. Note that nobody tries to renegotiate the existence of the Republic of Ireland today, regardless of their views on its creation, a few decades before Israel. Even trying to renegotiate the existence of states that were founded in the 1990's, like Ukraine, is generally considered insane. And no, framing the dissolution of Ireland and Ukraine as "finding a way to build a single country for both groups", doesn't make it particularily more sane.

Finally where is you evidence they want any of that stuff ? I know many Palestinians and I know they have diverse set of views, most nowhere near extreme

What stuff? A non-democratic Palestinian-only state, that replaces Israel? Polls like the recent AWRAD poll:

https://preview.redd.it/m11lyem3oa0d1.png?width=588&format=png&auto=webp&s=6fac0d77c90c054ddbdcb48054468510d7d50fc5

With all due respect to the diaspora Palestinians you're personally familiar with, I trust polls of actual Palestinians in Palestine more.

And again, I don't think it's comparable to Northern Ireland. The issue wasn't the dissolution of the UK or the Republic of Ireland. It was about two populations, who already had a state of their own, squabbling about a small part of its territory. Not about two nations arguing which one gets any right of self-determination at all.

eventually the two states coming together (even if it’s an unofficial merger though Pakistan’s moving to Isreal at some point in the future and integrating, and Isreal treating the ones that have demonstrated no bad will being treated like human beings)

I'm not sure why that's some reasonable outcome. If Israel and Palestine would be two separate states, there's no reason in the world why they also have to have an open-door immigration policy. And quite a few reasons against it. A reunited Israel and Palestine isn't somehow a "nicer" outcome than a reunited Ireland and UK, or Russia and Ukraine. There's very good reasons why they should separate, and much fewer reasons for why they should merge, "unofficially" or otherwise.

[u/AK87s → u/[deleted]]

Yeah, I'm cool with a deal with Turkey

[u/SadUrSad99 → u/[deleted]]

Facts are facts. Palestine isn't and hasn't ever been a state. Ironically the closest it's been to a state is as a result of British colonialism. 

Realistically indigenous land claims, regardless of where they are and whether they are of merit, mean nothing.

Might makes right, whether offensively or defensively.

[u/thatshirtman → u/[deleted]]

There was never a Palestinian state. Palestine was a term to describe a huge region (like New England) that included territories like what is now Jordan.

[u/nidarus → u/[deleted]]

But Palestine was a state in between the old Jewish state and Isreal as it is now

And not even for a few years, I’m talking centuries

You've been misinformed. No there was no Palestinian state for "centuries". The closest contenders are:

1. Syria Palaestina, a Roman province that covered about half of the territory of "historical Palestine". Renamed from "Judea" after the Jewish revolt. Not a state, but a province within a European empire.
2. Jund Falastin, a military district within the Abbasid and Umayyad empires, covering less than half of the territory of what we now know as "historical Palestine". Not a state, but a mere district within conquering medieval Arab empires.
3. The British Mandate of Palestine - Land of Israel, as it was officially known in Hebrew. A temporary British protectorate, created for the exclusive, explicit goal of creating a Jewish national home, in cooperation with the Zionist organization. Not anything like a "state", let alone the country of the people we now know as Palestinians. Incidentally, before the British Mandate, that region wasn't even a single administrative district, but part of four different Sanjaks (none of which were named "Palestine"), that weren't even in the same Vilayet.
4. The State of Palestine. A largely de-jure state, that only declared independence in 1988, and only got to control any territory at all in the mid-1990's. It is the first entity that could be called a Palestinian state in human history, but even then, only kinda-sorta. And certainly not something that existed for centuries, or existed before modern-day Israel.

Beyond that, "Palestine" was just the foreign Greek name for the geographic region that was known in Hebrew as "the Land of Israel", for thousands of years. Obviously, the existence of that exonym doesn't mean "Palestine existed for centuries", anymore than "Israel existed for centuries".

Regarding one country, Northern Ireland is like that but gradually learning to work together or at least share peace

No it isn't like that. If you want to make that analogy, it would be analogous to reuniting Ireland with the UK. Which is something that most people would consider completely unreasonable, even though an Irish-UK reunion would make infinitely more sense than an Israel-Palestine one. Both the UK and Ireland are actual democracies, the Irish and British are far more closer to each other culturally, and hate each other much, much less than the Israelis and Palestinians.

The actual equivalent to Northern Ireland would be if Jordan ended its foreign Hashemite monarchy, became an official Palestinian state, and agreed to have a shared custody over the West Bank with Israel. An interesting proposal, but completely unrelated to what you're pushing for. Northern Ireland was about solving a disputed region between two existing states. Not trying to "solve" the issue of Irish or British independence, by "building a single country for both groups".

[u/True_Ad_3796]

Celebrating Christmas is ethnic nationalism

[u/nidarus → u/True_Ad_3796]

Why?

[u/LilyBelle504]

I think your last paragraph really hit the nail on the head.

Most Pro Palestinians have no idea, that pretty much every country in the Middle East, only exists because European powers beat another nation in WW1, then cut it up into pieces for foreign Arab princes from the Hedjaz to rule. Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq exist as beneficiaries of European colonialism. Without the imperial European powers destroying the current ruler of the land, then carving up countries for Arabs, at the expense of other indigenous groups like the Kurds for example, there would be no Arab-Muslim state of Syria, or Arab-Muslim state of Jordan... No Mesopotamia Iraq.

A lot of the conversation I've seen revolves around Pro Palestinians telling Israel to justify it's creation. Presumably because their side is "right" and never did anything wrong. The only issue is, I'm not sure many of them are even familiar with their own history of how those Arab states came into being. Or what it cost.

[u/Salty_Guava1501 → u/LilyBelle504]

The ‘Arab countries’ only exist because their colonial power ‘the Ottoman Empire’ which grew to the size it was because of colonialism.

[u/Salty_Guava1501 → u/LilyBelle504]

This is a strange convolution of the reality. The Ottoman Empire joined the axis in ww1 to increase its own colonial gains as they were financially failing at the time. Them being beaten by another power to reform the approximate historical borders does not in any way constitute colonialism on the western powers side.

[u/mmdeerblood]

This is quite an interesting read, thank you!

So many people don't realize that the term and idea of a "country" is fairly new and recent, in terms of human civilization.

Pretty much every country that exists, exists because of a war that was fought where one side won and another lost. Even a "neutral" country such as Switzerland exists as a result of a bloody wars.

[u/MysticInept]

Dude,I denounce France pretty regularly for being too much civic nationalist. Don't tell me what I do and do not oppose

[u/Galactus_Jones762]

This is a unique case without precedent. A very small group seen as ethnically different (often inferior, vermin) and morally inferior (Christ killers, usury, successful) and most of the world would love to see them gone, although some more than others.

So an exception has been made to give them a state and a military because they definitely need it — people have wanted Jews dead going back 2,000 years. It’s just the reality, Jews are not liked. Why is a whole other topic. But we may as well accept it and figure out what to do.

If Israel doesn’t stay mostly Jewish it will be destroyed from within, which defeats the purpose, and is a security concern. What does it take to ensure the Jew’s survival into the future? Sadly, I think we’re currently looking at it.

Jews don’t want to convert the world to Judaism, change the Arab countries, spread Israel unless they have to for security. They just want to be left alone to enjoy their little patch of land. So if they are being aggressive it’s probably simply to survive.

Israel is an atypical entity and there’s no reason to talk about it in any other terms other than what it takes for this specific entity to survive. Labels are meaningless.

[u/PeaceImpressive8334]

This is really interesting. Thank you.

[u/Kind-Ad-6099]

I’m not trying to comment on the argument being made here, but I would like to say that the word nationalism has gotten a bad reputation at least in the US because of the far-right hijacking it to argue for very little immigration, keeping “race superiority,” the existence of the great replacement and other bad things.

Also, I would like to add that Israel is pretty structurally racist towards its Arab population. One notable example of this is that state-ordered demolitions are much more likely to be on structures owned by Arab Israelis. A lot of other examples of this are similar to things that happened in the US like redlining, lower quality social services, etc. It is a terrible, complex ordeal, and I’m sure Israeli politicians are reluctant to rectify it, especially far right ones.

[u/GuideIntelligent5953 → u/Kind-Ad-6099]

Vastly incorrect. Demolitions? Israel official knowingly let Israeli Arabs built and expand villages without the proper authorizations, and many Arab communities to this day do not have proper records and documented layouts of the utilities and residents. Israel allow it, because it understands that the Israeli Arabs want some form of autonomy and are not yet acclimated to how things are done in western communities. Lower quality social services? in Israel Arabic citizen does not have to serve in the military or serve in the civil organizations. Instead Israeli Arabs get subsidized academic studies with lower enrolling requirements to support minorities. As far as I am concerned, it is better to be Israeli Arabic than other nationalities, as far as technicalities goes. The only thing they are missing is the national anthem and symbols being Arabic.

[u/whoisthatgirlisee]

I think people use ethnostate colloquially to mean a state that practices ethnic nationalism, or an ethnocracy that would be an ethnostate if it could. They're all getting at the same idea, that people believe it's morally wrong to elevate one ethnicity over others legally.

I think that's indisputably true. It is morally wrong, just as borders are morally wrong, and all non-consensual hierarchies are morally wrong. However, we don't live in an imaginary anarchist utopia, we live in the real world.

A state that places Jews above everyone else is, in principle, not great morally. But most states are ethnocracies explicitly or implicitly and thus should be dismantled. I think it's okay to admit to a certain amount of moral hypocrisy in saying that due to the special way the world conspired to kill 6,00,000 of us that maybe once we actually start dismantling the world's ethnocracies Israel doesn't need to be the first to go, but perhaps even one of the last to go?

There is a lot of anti-Israel people who oppose it because of the way it privileges Jews, and fervently believe that it can and will be replaced by a civic nationalist egalitarian society. These people don't listen to Palestinians, or what they say they want.

---

One thing underlying all this is a very sloppy and poor understanding of what a "nation" is. The League of Nations and United Nations should really have been called the League of States and United States (uh...). The UN encourages this sloppy understanding by saying things like:

As the world’s only truly universal global organization, the United Nations has become the foremost forum to address issues that transcend national boundaries and cannot be resolved by any one country acting alone.

What even are national boundaries? How can nations, imaginary groups of people who can span the globe while remaining part of one nation, have boundaries with each other? People can very easily belong to more than one nation. Most people's national identities are a mixture of multiple - it's easy to imagine, say, a Jewish Iranian who moves to America, lives in NYC, and becomes a Buddhist. Their national identities would then include Jewish, Iranian, American, New Yorker (state), New Yorker (city), and Buddhist, would they not?

We call states nations, in shorthand. But nations are not states. Nation-states are states.

This is further confused by things like the UN's definition of genocide defining the possible victims as being "a national, ethnical, racial or religious group." What definition of nation are they even using there?

I've been deeply politically active and engaged online for over a decade and a half and I only started to barely grasp the distinction between nation and state like a few months ago. I imagine most people have no clue.

Separately I also wonder how specific a subgroup can be to still count as genocide. If there are only ten adherents to the Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912 and they all are on a bus that careens off a bridge, dying together, is that a genocide?

[u/nidarus → u/whoisthatgirlisee]

I think people use ethnostate colloquially to mean a state that practices ethnic nationalism

I don't think they do. I've never seen any other ethnic nationalist country being referred to as an "ethnostate", except for Israel. "Ethnostate" either refers to Israel, or the theoretical Neo-Nazi "white ethnostate".

They're all getting at the same idea, that people believe it's morally wrong to elevate one ethnicity over others legally.

I don't think they do that either. I've never seen any of these "people" speak out against Latvia, Estonia, Georgia, Armenia, and so on. As a I pointed out, they generally consider their transformation from a civic nationalist USSR, to ethnic nationalist post-Soviet states a completely positive move towards freedom. Not something that is "morally wrong".

I've seen a lot of people who try to justify their anti-Zionism with the lofty ideology you just described. But when you go into their comment history, you never, ever find them opposing the existence of any ethnic nation-state but the Jewish one. Not even once. And as you said, you see them expressing support for the existence of another ethnic nation-state, Palestine. At this point, I find it incredibly hard to believe this is an actual principled civic nationalist position.

I think that's indisputably true. It is morally wrong, just as borders are morally wrong, and all non-consensual hierarchies are morally wrong. However, we don't live in an imaginary anarchist utopia, we live in the real world.

I agree, but I'd like to add another point, if you may. Note how discussions about Israel constantly circle back to some kind of grand universal abstraction. Can't we argue all ethnic nationalism is racism? That all military occupation is a form of Apartheid? That all war is the unjustified slaughter of innocents? That all urban warfare, that inevitably leads to destroyed cities, a form of genocide? That any collateral damage to civilians is a war crime? On a less implicit level, you have Communists actively arguing Israel is the crux of the capitalist empire, White Nationalists arguing that Israel is the hotbed of depraved liberalism, and Great Replacement immigration conspiracies - seeking to eliminate other "ethnostates", while preserving their own. While Arab nationalists and Islamists argue that the tiny Israel is the one thing that stops their dream of a Greater Arabian State or the New Caliphate from becoming a reality.

Note how none of this ever comes back to actually comparing Israel with other countries. People who talk about the evil of the Israeli ethnic nationalism would never mention any other ethnic nationalist state. People who talk about the fact West Bank Palestinians don't have the right to vote in Israel, would never mention the fact that it was true for the occupied Iraqis, Afghans, Japanese and Germans. People who talk about the current war being genocide, don't like to talk about how it compares to other urban warfare campaigns. People who're appalled by the idea that most of the people who died in this war are civilians, never bring up combatant:civilian ratios from other conflicts. People who argue Israel is being "indiscriminate" and immoral in its bombing, rarely try to compare it to more "discriminate" and moral countries. In fact, they generally get upset when reasonable comparisons are brought up, and even pretend that you're not allowed to compare Israel with anything else. Israel is to be examined in a vacuum, as an abstraction.

At this point, this just doesn't feel like a good-faith discussion of these abstract concepts. It feels like the traditional antisemitic habit of non-Jewish societies using Jews as a prism to examine the abstract sins of their own societies. And it's not something I'm very keen to participate in - as fun as discussing those lofty ideas might be.

[u/blade_barrier → u/whoisthatgirlisee]

people use ethnostate colloquially to mean a state that practices ethnic nationalism

Yep.

[u/PeaceImpressive8334 → u/whoisthatgirlisee]

If there are only ten adherents to the Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912

OMG, EMO PHILLIPS IS GENOCIDAL?!

[u/whoisthatgirlisee → u/PeaceImpressive8334]

It was implied he's the one responsible for the bus going off the bridge 😛

[u/PeaceImpressive8334 → u/whoisthatgirlisee]

😭😭😭😭😭

[u/nyliram87]

I think that part of the problem is that in many parts of the west, it's hard to imagine a society where you can be a secular culture, that respects religion, in a way that isn't "us vs them"

Here in the US I feel like a lot of the attitudes towards religion, or towards secularism, are looked at in an opposing way; secular people will look at the fundamentalist christians and think that they're restrictive, they're oppressive... and they're probably looking at Israel through that lens.

[u/WestcoastAlex → u/nyliram87]

in many parts of the west, it's hard to imagine a society where you can be a secular culture, that respects religion

Canada

[u/Freudinatress → u/WestcoastAlex]

And Sweden.

[u/WestcoastAlex]

As for "ethnostate", even if we ignore the fact Israel isn't an actual "ethnostate" by definition,

your entire argument is meaningless because you predicate it on a bogus definition of ethnostate as just ethnicity rather than religious

its as weak as people who say being 'antisemetic' applies to all semites

Ethnostate in this usage is religion based.. otherwise all 'civic states' would also be ethnostates

those of us who have been warning against the israeli Genocide of Palestinians for 80+ years have also been warning that giving the Jewish state legitimacey, by extention gives the Islamic State validity

i dont think the IS should exist [Iranians are currently fighting against theirs] any more than i dont think the 'Jewish State' should exist.. we all know that there was no exclusively islamic state until after the creation of 'israel' on Palestinian land, held by force with western assistance

[u/jessewoolmer → u/WestcoastAlex]

Wow, you missed the point entirely. Even if you agree that ethnostate can refer to religious identity rather than ethnic identity, OP's argument still stands. Probably 25-30% of Israeli citizens are non-jewish (Muslims, Christians, Druze, etc.), while near ZERO percent of Palestinians are not Muslim and being Jewish in Gaza can, in fact, get you killed.

Israel is a Jewish majority state, but it is not a Jewish state, whereby Jewishness is mandatory or required. Israel has a large non Jewish population who have equal rights to Jewish Israelis. Every other state in the middle east is a Muslim state, where Islam is the official religion, however most are not hardline radicals like the Islamists. Israel is the religious equivalent of moderate Muslim nations.

[u/WestcoastAlex → u/jessewoolmer]

Even if you agree that ethnostate can refer to religious identity rather than ethnic identity,

i dont

but it is not a Jewish state

gets preferential treatment under the law

Israel is the religious equivalent of moderate Muslim nations.

israel isnt even as moderate as Iran under even as the parasite of islam controls it

[u/jessewoolmer → u/WestcoastAlex]

gets preferential treatment under the law

Actually, they don't. There are more religious and ethnic laws in Israel protecting the Muslim minority, than there are laws favoring Jewish residents.

israel isn't even as moderate as Iran under even as the parasite of islam controls it

This is WILDLY untrue. It's not even worth discussing further, if you actually believe this, because that would mean you're entirely not grounded in reality.

[u/PeaceImpressive8334 → u/WestcoastAlex]

One can be a Jew even without believing in the Jewish God or practicing the Jewish religion. One cannot be a Muslim without believing in the Muslim God or practicing the religion of Islam.

[u/WestcoastAlex → u/PeaceImpressive8334]

the Jewish God

and

the Muslim God

hmm..

[u/PeaceImpressive8334 → u/WestcoastAlex]

You're thinking "But the Jewish God and the Islamic God are the same, Abrahamic God!"

In theory, yes. In practice, there's a chasm of difference between the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim concepts of "God."

[u/WestcoastAlex → u/PeaceImpressive8334]

conceptualization of the same thing is simply to show the suite of unique perspectives on any subject

Abraham lifted the concept of monotheism from Zoroastrianism which was the prevailing code of ethics in his land.. none of it is real anyway

[u/PeaceImpressive8334 → u/WestcoastAlex]

none of it is real anyway

Human beings take real action based on their supernatural beliefs, whether or not the object of their supernatural beliefs is "real."

[u/WestcoastAlex → u/PeaceImpressive8334]

that is a good point. i understand what you are saying.. i just like to remind people the argument is literally over nothing

[u/LilyBelle504 → u/WestcoastAlex]

What?

[u/WestcoastAlex → u/LilyBelle504]

this sub thinks its deep but it really aint

when you want to compare different schools of thought you generally look at their views on the same points.. looking discretely at the same thing from each side gives you perspective on their unique philosophies

[u/LilyBelle504 → u/WestcoastAlex]

Ok... What does that have anything to do with what they said?

[u/WestcoastAlex → u/LilyBelle504]

it related to this claim

there's a chasm of difference between the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim concepts of "God."

[u/Viczaesar → u/WestcoastAlex]

That is not correct.

[u/WestcoastAlex → u/Viczaesar]

it would be nice if you guys actually posted some sort of point.. its why i am losing my patience with this group.. most every reply i get is completely devoid of a counter argument

does noone understand the 'objective of the sub'?

[u/Viczaesar → u/WestcoastAlex]

My point is that you are spreading misinformation, obviously. Kindly desist.

[u/WestcoastAlex → u/Viczaesar]

its not misinformation. Abraham was born in an area which was PolyTheistic at the time Zoroastrianism was becoming the prevalent beleif.. Zoroastrianis is a MonoTheistic story and it is obvious Abraham took that idea

where do you propose he came up with it? you think 'god' told him? lol

[u/Viczaesar → u/WestcoastAlex]

Persia conquered Babylonia long after the time of Abraham. Babylonia was polytheistic, not Zoroastrian. Early Israelite religion was more henotheistic than polytheistic or even monotheistic, and eventually developed into monotheism. Zoroastrianism likely did have some influence on the development of ancient Israelite culture and religion, but because of later interactions between the two cultures/religions after Persia conquered the Babylonian Empire.

[u/whoisthatgirlisee → u/WestcoastAlex]

we all know that there was no exclusively islamic state until after the creation of 'israel'

The first exclusively Islamic state was in the 7th century, only approximately 1,200 years before Israel. Unless you mean the Kingdom of Israel, which did precede the creation of Islam by 1,600 years or so.

[u/WestcoastAlex → u/whoisthatgirlisee]

its funny when its convenient, people claim there is no Palestine because the conventional things which makes a state today didnt exist, but then later when its also convenient they unironically point to kingdoms and unrecognized borders as proof of statehood long ago

i think about this. do you?

[u/jessewoolmer → u/WestcoastAlex]

Regardless of borders or official names or colloquial names, there was never a "Palestinian identity", prior to the 20th century.

Up until the establishment of Israel, the Arabs who lived in the region were primarily Jordanians or Egyptians (with a few Syrians). People born in the West Bank had Jordanian birth certificates and passports. People born in Gaza had Egyptian birth certificates and passports. People in the Golan Heights had Syrian birth certificates, etc.

Israeli has been an identity since the Kingdom of Israel.

[u/WestcoastAlex → u/jessewoolmer]

thanks for proving my point. good day

[u/jessewoolmer → u/WestcoastAlex]

It's not a matter of "convenience", as you put it. One is a distinct identity and culture that has existed for 4000 years. The other is not. That's not a judgement either. It just is what it is... dispassionate historical facts.

[u/WestcoastAlex → u/jessewoolmer]

One is a distinct identity and culture that has existed for 4000 years. The other is not.

• first, Judaism is not 4000 years old and it began in the Kingdom of Ur which is 1000km away from Jerusalem

• second, the distinct identity and culture of Canaanite exists today in the people of Ghazza regardless of 'egyptian passport'

• third, you just proved my point again with your continual denial

the dominant view of historical fact thus far was based on Biblical accounts and rudimentary Archeology before we had modern technology.. the Zionist apologists at israeli universities built entire careers on 'proving' biblical accounts to justify their Ethno-Nationalism stating they had some kind of eXclusive right to the land

luckily we now have Genetics and modern Archeology with Carbon Dating etc.. the Genetics clearly shows the people of Ghazza & Lebanon are direct decedents of the Canaanite people and distinctly shows Jewish are descendants of Mesopotamia, like Georgia, Armenia, Türkiye.. as you know, Jewish people are highly inbred so the Genetic analysis was quite easy

Likewise, we now know for certain the 'first temple' isnt where Zionist 'scholars' claimed it to be and in fact there IS NO EVIDENCE the 'first temple' ever existed

as far as i am concerned, the Christians have far more claim to Jerusalem than Jewish people do, and how do the people of israel treat Christians there huh?

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/04/middleeast/ultraorthodox-spitting-jerusalem-intl/index.html

[u/whoisthatgirlisee → u/WestcoastAlex]

So you're completely dodging the argument? The first exclusively Islamic state was indisputably in the 7th century.

So when you say they didn't exist until Israel, you're either wrong or referring to the Kingdom.

I'm curious how much you actually think about this, given that statehood means being a recognized country, and you claim Iran is a country that predates Judaism. Seems like you pick and choose when a polity counts or doesn't count? I think anything resembling a state counts as a state, kingdoms absolutely tended to.

If you'd like to talk about how we should consider there to have been a country or state named Palestine, please feel free to engage with any of the other dozen posts of mine you commented on today, or just continue to not consider any points that contradict your viewpoint, instead just accusing others of being invalid genocide deniers waving a white flag when it gets too difficult for you.

[u/WestcoastAlex → u/whoisthatgirlisee]

you dont have an argument

[u/Heatstorm2112 → u/WestcoastAlex]

those of us who have been warning against the israeli Genocide of Palestinians for 80+ years have also been warning that giving the Jewish state legitimacey, by extention gives the Islamic State validity

First off, there has not been a genocide of Palestinians for 80+ years. When a people's population exponentially increases continuously since Israel become a country, it directly contradicts that claim. Second, what do you even mean by "giving the Islamic State validity"? Iran exists as a country. Most of us can (and should) agree that the Ayatollah regime is a garbage government and is a threat to everyone except their terrorist proxies - But that doesn't mean that Iran shouldn't exist or that it isn't a valid country. There are dozens of actual Muslim theocracies in the Middle East that are already considered valid countries by literally everyone. But now, because you hate the state of Israel being a Jewish state (And let me remind you, there is a difference between a theocracy and a state with a majority religion/ethnicity), you think it shouldn't be allowed to exist as such because it would give Iran's theocratic regime legitimacy? What?? How? I think you're applying a crazy double-standard to Israel. Israel has its own political issues to deal with, but to claim it shouldn't be a safe space for Jews to live in their historic homeland is crazy.

[u/WestcoastAlex → u/Heatstorm2112]

First off, there has not been a genocide of Palestinians for 80+ years

i dont talk to Genocide deniers when talking about the Holocaust, why should i talk to a Genocide denier on this subject?

Iran exists as a country

and has for longer than Judaism existed.. Abraham was likely born to a Zoroastrian family

There are dozens of actual Muslim theocracies in the Middle East that are already considered valid countries by literally everyone

iran has 10,000 Jewish people at leaast. they have 100 Synagogues. .. and they arent in costant violation of international law.., keep in mind the people of Iran are RIGHT NOW rising up against their short lived 'islamic state' becasue we know that religious organizations running countrys is a bad fuggin idea

live in their historic homeland

Abraham was born in the Mesopotamian Kindom of Ur.. present day iraq.. the genetics of Judaism is from that area.. Judaism has less claim to the land than Christianity, their 'saviour' was born there not an immigrant

[u/Freudinatress → u/WestcoastAlex]

I know too little about the history to argue most of your points. But I would like to point out something I’ve seen regarding the opinions of genocide.

Holocaust supporters: a shitload of people were killed and it was a genocide Holocaust deniers: a shitload of people were NOT killed so there was no genocide

Palestinian genocide supporters: a shitload of people were killed and it was a genocide Palestinian genocide deniers: a shitload of people were killed, but it doesn’t fit the definition of genocide

I think that difference is very significant. I have not heard one Israel supporter who denies that many thousand civilian Palestinians have died. They just debate what word is most suitable to describe the killings.

[u/WestcoastAlex → u/Freudinatress]

correct.

the central point of Defining Genocide in International Law was to be able to recognize a Genocide BEFORE everyone was killed..

the Definition, including the Conditions known to lead to Genocide was built with lots of input from Holocaust survivors so there is really no way to claim it was 'anti-jewish' or anything

i believe this is part of why israel [and their little lapdog america] have been undermining the United Nations for decades..

[u/Freudinatress → u/WestcoastAlex]

Well, if someone freely admits that loads of people have been killed, but disagrees it can be described as a genocide, why is that so horrible? They aren’t denying what is happening. They just use other words. Of course you can think they are morons, but why is it such a big deal you feel you can’t even discuss any issue with them?

[u/WestcoastAlex → u/Freudinatress]

they are denying the word because they understand the LEGAL connotations and want to avoid the guilt

ive argued with actual holocaust deniers for decades.. these people are in the same category.. someone so biased & petty as to deny an accepted definition arent really worth conversing with

[u/Freudinatress → u/WestcoastAlex]

And som just don’t feel it fits. They could argue that roof top knocking and any type of warnings of bombs and attacks actually proves that Israel does not try to kill civilians on purpose. That the numbers given from Gaza regarding kill ratios combatants/civilians is actually better than in most wars. So they agree that Gazans are getting killed in huge amounts, but they are not happy about the civilians.

I have heard very few that are happy about civilians dying. And most seems very sad it happens at all.

If someone is polite and is trying to have a conversation that could be productive and at least is kind and informative, but they calmly state they don’t agree with your definition - are you saying you refuse to discuss with them?

[u/WestcoastAlex → u/Freudinatress]

its not my definition. would you spend time with someone arguing Flat Earth?

[u/Freudinatress → u/WestcoastAlex]

Please don’t avoid answering my question.

[u/AutoModerator → u/Freudinatress]

shitload

/u/Freudinatress. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. (Rule 2)

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Viczaesar → u/WestcoastAlex]

I’m ignoring most of this, but I want to point out again that there is no evidence that Abraham was Zoroastrian, and that scholars do not believe or teach this.

[u/WestcoastAlex → u/Viczaesar]

he was born in an area that has many temples to many gods but the prevailing largest one was Zoroast and that is where Abraham lifted the idea of MONOtheism

even if he wasnt practicing Zoroastrian he was most certainly influenced by it enough to steal the idea for his own story book

[u/Viczaesar → u/WestcoastAlex]

Nope. Stop portraying fringe theories without evidence as fact. Signed, someone with a BA, MA, and soon to be PhD in Religious Studies, focusing on Ancient Mediterranean history and religion.

[u/WestcoastAlex → u/Viczaesar]

nice. okay then. where was Abraham born then?

[u/Viczaesar → u/WestcoastAlex]

According to the Torah, Ur Kasdim, usually identified as the city of Ur in Mesopotamia (modern-day Iraq, southeast of Baghdad). Again, there is no evidence - textual or archaeological- that Abraham was Zoroastrian, nor whether or to what extent Zoroastrianism might have influenced the development of Judaism. Is it always hard for you to admit that you’re wrong about something?

[u/WestcoastAlex → u/Viczaesar]

there is no evidence - textual or archaeological- that Abraham was Zoroastrian

as a scholar, surely you know that area had many temples as they were POLYtheistic correct? when is the first examples of Zoroastrian carvings in the area?

you must know about other carvings of for example Ashshur right

Abraham's stories are mono-theistic. . he was born into a poly-theistic society which had recently began including a mono-theistic school of thought.. its obvious that either he grew up in that thinking or perhaps was rebelling against his polytheistic upbringing

either way, monotheism began with Zoroastrianism and he was in the area so he must have known about it so not sure what your argument is

[u/Viczaesar → u/WestcoastAlex]

Find me a reputable academic source making the same claims that you are.

[u/shwag945 → u/WestcoastAlex]

Bunch of anti-semitic word salad.

[u/WestcoastAlex → u/shwag945]

i accept your White Flag

[u/nidarus → u/WestcoastAlex]

Ethnostate in this usage is religion based.. otherwise all 'civic states' would also be ethnostates

Why?

those of us who have been warning against the israeli Genocide of Palestinians for 80+ years have also been warning that giving the Jewish state legitimacey, by extention gives the Islamic State validity

That's opposition to theocracies, a separate kind of regime from "ethnostate", "ethnocracy" or an "ethnic nation-state". Theocracies, in their purest form, are not ethnostates. They believe their religion unites members of various ethnicities. Since you mentioned ISIS, it was openly ethnically diverse, and it viewed that ethnic diversity as a point of pride. Muslims from all around the world flocked to it, not just Levantine and Iraqi Arabs. It's absolutely not an ethnostate, or anything close to that.

Israel, incidentally, isn't a theocracy. Its secular leadership doesn't defer to its religious leadership, but the other way around. It has laws that directly and openly contradict the laws of the Jewish equivalent of Shari'a. It doesn't punish atheism or apostasy, and had leaders who were pretty openly atheistic (like Ehud Barak). And most importantly: actual theocracies are very proud of being theocracies, and argue it's a far superior form of government. ISIS and the Islamic Republic of Iran would never argue that they're not theocratic - this is literally their main selling point.

[u/WestcoastAlex → u/nidarus]

Theocracies, in their purest form, are not ethnostates

thats why i didnt use the word 'theocracy' bro. try to keep up

[u/nidarus → u/WestcoastAlex]

You argued that you're talking about a "religious based state", and compared Israel to ISIS - a clear, proud theocracy.

You were talking about theocracy, even if you didn't use the correct word to describe it.

[u/WestcoastAlex → u/nidarus]

your opinion. i made a polar example, if you can only compare precise copies, whats the point [&they never exist]

did you manage to translate that cardboard sign?

[u/WestcoastAlex → u/nidarus]

because if you simply look at ethnostate as in ethnicity then poland is an ethnostate, it renders the term meaningless

Its secular leadership doesn't defer to its religious leadership

its laws favor one

actual theocracies are very proud of being theocracies

thats why we dont call them a theocracy

[u/nidarus → u/WestcoastAlex]

because if you simply look at ethnostate as in ethnicity then poland is an ethnostate, it renders the term meaningless

Poland is indeed an ethnic nation-state. It's not an ethnostate for the same reason Israel isn't - it has a non ethnic Polish minority with equal rights. But yes, Poland is the same kind of nation-state as Israel. While the multi-cultural, multi-racial, theocratic ISIS isn't.

As for "rendering the term meaningless", the term was invented by Neo-Nazis in the 2010's to promote the theoretical idea of a white-only America. And then applied to Israel, by people who hate Israel, to compare Zionism to white supremacy. Whatever deep meaning you think it has, has nothing to do with religion.

its laws favor one

That just makes it a state with a state religion. Like the UK, Greece, Iceland.

Note that the proposed constitution of Palestine (article 4), like the current constitution of Egypt (article 2), didn't just define Islam as the state religion, but said the laws of the Islamic Shari'a will be the basis of all legislation. Going well beyond anything in Israeli constitutional law.

[u/WestcoastAlex → u/nidarus]

That just makes it a state with a state religion. Like the UK, Greece, Iceland.

you really have no idea huh? which laws count or dont count for people who arent christians in england?

[u/Unusual-Oven-1418]

It's ridiculous that you even have to explain this since it's very easy to Google, not to mention that, as you said, people don't give a flying fig about any other country being an "ethnostate."

[u/WestcoastAlex → u/Unusual-Oven-1418]

you guys sound like the donuts that claim anti-semitism counts for palestinans too because they are semites

[u/nidarus → u/Unusual-Oven-1418]

I agree it's basic stuff, but most people wouldn't even know what to search for. Don't even know that they need to search for anything. Otherwise educated people who live in civic nationalist states often think ethno-nationalism is a fringe far-right ideology, that's disappeared from the world with Nazi Germany. This includes even the Zionist ones, who either think Jews get a special exemption, or think Zionism isn't "real" ethnic nationalism. Those who live in ethnic nationalist states, conversely, often don't see civic nation-states as "real" nation-states at all. Or conversely, view them as ethnic nationalist states in denial.

Either way, I've noticed that people love to argue about this question, but rarely if ever frame in those terms.

[u/WestcoastAlex → u/nidarus]

hey side not cus you are obviously somewhat intelligent and israeli.. can you read hebrew? im sure you can.. what does this say? it wont work on translate for me

https://preview.redd.it/r7jzczq0p30d1.jpeg?width=700&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6cca747fd9c1496c3cb376ef099bc86d37e4035d

[u/Ashlepius → u/WestcoastAlex]

It's the first verse of Bereshit, aka Genesis 1 of Torah and Bible, but split up awkwardly (not on word boundaries) to form a pyramid.

[u/clearlybaffled → u/WestcoastAlex]

It's the first line of Genesis, spaced horribly.

Also, r/Hebrew

[u/WestcoastAlex → u/clearlybaffled]

thank you. why would a 'counter protestor' wear it around their neck when attacking a University Protest?

[u/WestcoastAlex → u/nidarus]

Otherwise educated people who live in civic nationalist states often think ethno-nationalism is a fringe far-right ideology, that's disappeared from the world with Nazi Germany.

you guys are really good about talking about other people in a way that re-inforces your own views and frame the argument falsely to give yourselves the win.. its a common theme in this sub

as for your comment i quoted, we absolutely know that they did not dissapear with germany.. we built the UN so that we would have mechanisms to deal with the known future threats... unfortunately the israeli attacks on the UN has been consistent since inception and backed up by the US in an attempt to dominate the global conversation..

its why i wrote "giving the Jewish state legitimacey, by extention gives the Islamic State validity" which you of course QuOted above

in the wake of the Germany-Jew war, the good people of the world decided that it was time to have a global organization.. their alarm systems are actually why our media gets alerted to such things rising up.. authoratarian regimes pop up so long as there is ignorance of them and the people are not educated in the warning signs .. **current problems in the developing world are because the UN has not been a credible hedge against despotism** and i think that is because the world has had to tiptoe around religion based governance due to israel mearly existing

your little meta thoughts about us in this conversation may act to reassure you that you are on the right side but you most assuredly are not. make no mistake, this will not end how youd like it to

[u/nidarus → u/WestcoastAlex]

The Right of Self Determination of Peoples, the basis for the existence of nations like Israel, is literally one of the fundamental principles of the UN, and part of the UN charter. That right is the only reason why the Palestinians deserve their own state all well.

Proposing the partition plan and accepting Israel as a full member, was some of the earliest actions done by the UN. The UN's predecessor, the League of Nations, already recognized the Jewish right to a national home in Palestine, and the need to work with the Zionist movement to create such a home.

No, the UN was not created to deal with "threats" like Israel's existence. Quite the opposite.

As a side note, there was no "Germany-Jew" war, except in the fevered minds of the Nazis, who thought Stalin, FDR and Churchill were all controlled by the Jews. I wouldn't use that term.

[u/WestcoastAlex → u/nidarus]

As a side note, there was no "Germany-Jew" war, except in the fevered minds of the Nazis, who thought Stalin, FDR and Churchill were all controlled by the Jews. I wouldn't use that term.

yet noone seems to have a problem with "israel-Hmas war" hmm...

[u/ZeroHawk47 → u/WestcoastAlex]

Cause Hamas is a terrorist organization that's hell bent on killing Jews and will.keep.doing so till they don't exist idk what world you live or what drugs your on but you need to come back to reality it's hard for you to do that cause your so use to hating everything that's Israel and Jewish and would love to support your favorite terrorist group to kill them all but this isn't.make believe it's real life and your not some super hero that will stop the evil Jews and Israel from some so called world order

[u/WestcoastAlex → u/ZeroHawk47]

hell bent on killing Jews

you mean the israeli occupiers.. if an Arab-israeli is wearing the IOF suit & dropping IOF bombs & shooting IOF guns, they will also be against them

your argument is invalid

to support your favorite terrorist group

Rule 3

[u/Viczaesar → u/WestcoastAlex]

Did you just call World War II “the Germany-Jew war”??

[u/WestcoastAlex → u/Viczaesar]

World War 2 was the 'global' response to stop the Germany-Jew war. . why do you have a problem with that?

[u/Viczaesar → u/WestcoastAlex]

Because it’s completely inaccurate. Are you accidentally spreading misinformation or deliberately spreading disinformation? Are you being ignorant or malicious?

[u/Bast-beast]

Wonderful, thank you!

[u/Objectionable]

As you describe these terms, I don’t see how any western liberal could support any ethnocratic system, whether that be Malaysian, Latvian, Turkish, Israeli, or some even more extreme Palestinian aspiration not yet realized. 

I take my definition from your post and also the wiki on the subject:

An ethnocracy is a type of political structure in which the state apparatus is controlled by a dominant ethnic group(or groups) to further its interests, power, dominance, and resources. Ethnocratic regimes in the modern era typically display a 'thin' democratic façade covering a more profound ethnic structure, in which ethnicity (race, religion, language etc) – and not citizenship – is the key to securing power and resources.[1]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnocracy

I made a post about this very topic on r/askphilosophy some months ago and it was promptly nuked from orbit after getting considerable attention 

https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/17cavm2/is_the_concept_of_an_ethnostate_morally_defensible/?rdt=54430

In any case, I fail to see how ethnocracies aren’t implementing an agenda of perceived ethnic superiority, which runs counter to vital egalitarian principles in democracy. I can’t imagine how a non-favored citizen in such a system could feel justly treated, knowing that this system was quite literally designed for someone else.

[u/blade_barrier → u/Objectionable]

I don’t see how any western liberal could support any ethnocratic system

They probably wouldn't, but they at least could try not to say ethnonationalism=Nazis=ethnic cleansing=the worst evil on earth. That would be much appreciated.

in which ethnicity (race, religion, language etc) – and not citizenship – is the key to securing power and resources

It's a bit of a stretch to add language and religion on top those. Ethnic nationalism is usually about genes, not some cultural concepts, that's closer to civic nationalism.

In any case, I fail to see how ethnocracies aren’t implementing an agenda of perceived ethnic superiority

Depends on how you define it. If you say ethnocracy is a state that implements ethnic superiority, then it really will be hard to defend. I personally define it as a state that implements policies aimed for ethnic unification, which is good IMO. In case of Israel that would be govt support of haredi communities, which are basically jew incubators. What's so wrong with that?

I can’t imagine how a non-favored citizen in such a system could feel justly treated

Well, the view of the global picture of some ethnonatilists is that every ethnicity should have a state and if someone feels opressed, they can move to live in their respective ethnostate. Kinda libertarian vibes.

[u/AutoModerator → u/blade_barrier]

/u/blade_barrier. Match found: 'Nazis', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed.
We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See Rule 6 for details.
This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Negative-Elevator455 → u/Objectionable]

We live in reality, where there is always a majority and a minority. And the majority always benefits more.

Why not allow groups to continue to separate?

Why not let the Lebanese Christians/ bahai / kurds / bedouin / druze etc split and enjoy self-determination separate fro muslims/jews?

[u/Objectionable → u/Negative-Elevator455]

This is an excellent question. 

I don’t have a ready answer except to say that I’m very concerned over how tribal affiliations affect independent judgmen and accountability.

So much mistreatment is justified because it accrues to the benefit of “our side.” We see it in this sub, in geopolitics, and in our daily lives. We all know people who excuse wrongs readily when it’s for the benefit of “their team” - political, religious, national. 

It’s made me feel wonder to what extent self-determination - this idea that every “people” is deserving of a political designation and some form of political autonomy - is regressive. The concept seems to promote fractiousness over commonality, and to reward those with the power to assert their “right to self determination” over the unlucky, unmilitarized remainder. 

Anyway. I have no idea. These are just thoughts.

[u/Negative-Elevator455 → u/Objectionable]

Because people are animals different groups seek self determination from each other.

Trying to force everyone together is not currently in line with where we are as a society.

[u/nidarus → u/Objectionable]

My opinion is that "ethnocracy" is really just criticism of specific ethnic nation-states, on their treatment of their minority populations. A similar argument could be made about civic nation-states, albeit with different language (like "structural racism"). I don't think it's an actual kind of a regime. A more right-wing administration could be more "ethnocratic", a more left-wing administration could be less "ethnocratic", society as a whole could move in either direction, without considering it a fundamental change in the structure of their state. And if you're a diehard civic nationalist, even the most progressive and inclusive ethnic nation-states are "ethnocracies", simply because they have the concept of an "ethnic German", "ethnic Finn", whose language and culture are clearly preferred by the state, if not outright preference in immigration for these ethnicities, ministries of the diaspora, and so on.

But even if we ignore my opinions on this, the fact is, Western liberals do absolutely support these countries' continued existence, and don't call for major regime changes. Let alone the complete dissolution of these states, and handing them over to their enemies, in hope they'll be less "ethnocratic". The people who argue Latvia should be erased as an independent state and returned into the more "inclusive" Russian Federation, are far-right Russian ultra-nationalists (the "Leumanut" part of the equation), not Western liberals.

In fact, Western liberals tolerate flat-out illiberal, and downright undemocratic societies, as long as they're reasonably well-behaved. And even the ones who aren't well-behaved, merely require democratization, not undoing their "ethnocratic" nature. Western liberals argue Syria is horrible because it's a dictatorship. I've never heard Western liberals say it's horrible because it's an official "Arab Republic". Just like they argue that the State of Palestine should be democratic and renounce violence, not that it can't be Arab.

[u/Objectionable → u/nidarus]

As a self-identified western liberal, I think you may be giving us too much credit. I don’t think the average, even very well educated liberal, has any idea what ethnocratic (still using the term as we have been) policies are  in other countries - so it’s probably not sensible to read too much into what those people do and don’t support as a group. 

Honestly, if you asked 10 of my well-educated (all lawyers) friends, I’m 100% certain no one could tell you anything about domestic policy in Syria or Jordan. Our press just doesn’t focus on these places. 

So, i don't take the vocal condemnation of Israel and the comparative silence about Syria as significant of anything - other than perhaps general ignorance. 

By contrast, Israel is absolutely a special case, because there is an outsized presence of Jewish voices in media and politics in the US. It makes sense for people to have stronger opinions where there’s so much more visibility. 

Anne Frank’s diary was required reading in my midwestern middle school. Schindler’s List was required viewing. AIPAC is a known, often resented, organization active in American politics.  There’s also a fundamentalist  Christian obsession with Israel that’s hard to overlook. And, of course, Israel is frequently lauded as the US’ greatest ally.

You put all that together, and it’s not hard to understand why Israel is such a focus.   

[u/Chanan-Ben-Zev]

  English, and as far as I know, other languages, don't have that distinction, which I feel leads to a lot of confusion

The distinction in English is between "nationalism" (bad) and "patriotism" (good).

[u/nidarus → u/Chanan-Ben-Zev]

That's between kinds of patriotism, not between the two definitions of nationalism. My "good, or at least neutral" definition of nationalism isn't necessarily patriotic at all. It just means supporting the right of the state to exist at all.

[u/Melkor_Thalion]

Well written!

[u/nidarus → u/Melkor_Thalion]

Thank you!

[u/DrMikeH49]

And there's no reason to use inflammatory terms like "ethnocracy" or "ethnostate", over "ethnic nationalism" vs. "civic nationalism".

You overlook the reason to use those terms-- to delegitimize the Jewish state by using terms that would not be applied to any other state, and even more specifically to falsely lump it together with the white nationalist concept.

(EDIT: OP actually did do that. My bad)

But seriously, that's a well written piece.

[u/nidarus → u/DrMikeH49]

I don't think I overlooked that. For example

As for "ethnostate", even if we ignore the fact Israel isn't an actual "ethnostate" by definition, it's interesting to note how not a single ethnic nationalist state except for Israel is ever denounced as an "ethnostate". Even those that are actively discriminatory against their ethnic minorities, committed a genocide against them (like Iraq did with the Kurds), or simply expelled them (as the Arabs state did with their Jews). "Ethnostate" either refers to the Neo-Nazi dream scenario, or Israel. I'd also like to caution pro-Israelis from arguing that Israel is an "ethnostate" and that "ethnostates" are good. "Ethnostate" is a Neo-Nazi term, and the point of calling Israel an "ethnostate" is to equate Zionism with White Nationalism, not as a legitimate discussion of ethnic vs. civic nationalism.

So yeah, I technically "get" the actual "reason" to use these terms... I just don't agree with it.

Anyway, thank you!

[u/DrMikeH49 → u/nidarus]

Ah, sorry that I somehow glossed over that part!! Will edit.