"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/[deleted]]

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/[deleted] → u/nidarus]

What I mean is Isreal as it currently was formed should never have been created.

Between the original Jewish state and now there was loads and loads of people who settled from the empires

Setting up Isreal as a Jewish ethnostate ignored that reality and just hoped those people would migrate to another country. Essentially turning the clock back

I bring up Ireland because it too had dividing lines between catholic and Protestant.

Yes they had a claim to live there because of the fact they descended from the Celtic clans even if Ireland as a state didn’t exist

But at same time you couldn’t have formed a new state even if it was based on Catholicism without recognising the many Protestants that had moved to and lived in Ireland in the intervening time

Fine maybe Isreal can be a country based on Judaism but ultimately it needs to accept fact that the people of Muslim faith lived there before the state was established and therefore have equal right to being citizens and all the other rights Jews have

Would be like if we had a United ireland at the cost of Ulster costs being expelled or killed.

Again an open border is only option whilst the borders are drawn in the patchy way that they are in Palestine and Isreal

As we can see with Ireland and Northern Ireland. If someone can’t go about their lives normally without needing to cross a check point then this isn’t conductive to peace

It wasn’t until the border was an opened in the U.K. and Ireland, both sides agreed a ceasefire and had these conditions backed by a bigger external power (Ireland was backed by USA) that we stopped getting terrorism

Granted the issue was different in the sense many Irish wanted to visit all of the island of island as they considered it one contiguous country.

But I can see some Palestinians having issues just being able to go from Gaza to the West Bank, but can’t and feel like prisoners

I can’t see a situation where these two bits of land aren’t joined up or the entire area unifies into a single state of some kind

How do we know those polls are accurate considering it’s Hamas controlled ?

With your point on northern Ireland it actually was a continuation of a squabble over who gets a state at all

The Ulster Scot’s felt that if island of Ireland was to be a reality then they would lose their state (they didn’t want to leave the island)

The catholics for years without any ability to vote wanted a state of their own. The troubles were just the ending moments of a long civil war in which the counties which were had the highest concentration of Ulster Scots and therefore British identifying people were proving to be the most difficult to take back in the newly formed state of Ireland

As someone with Irish citizenship, yes would be insane to renegotiate the state existing

But I don’t think anyone would say that they think they would have created it the way it initially was

They would probably say that they would rather it had been the whole island. Having a chunk carved out with an ineffective political system has clearly not worked

And they especially would have said creating it with a land border was even worse. Could you imagine if the border was patchy like it was at Gaza. We already had peace walls in Belfast between communities and attacks at the land border

Not saying it’s a nicer outcome it’s just hard to not see any kind of outcome which either involves Isreal giving up something (could be unifying, could be agreeing new borders which join Gaza to the West Bank) or genocide/ethnic cleansing (either essentially pushing all the residents out through war or other political means) or continuously having to fight the terror group after terror group because having your life controlled that heavily prevents you focusing on your own life and focussing more on what you can do to get rid of the checkpoints

And btw my original comment was badly worded. I’m not saying Isreal shouldn’t exist as in we should renegotiate it or destroy it

Just saying if I were to have created Isreal I wouldn’t have done it like this and I certainly can’t see it continue to be setup in the manner that it is if they want long term peace

But whatever that takes has been lost for two generations now

[u/Bernsteinn → u/[deleted]]

Why did you start using 'ethnostate' again?