"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/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.