"They elect whom they choose" doesn't excuse electing people advocating ethnic cleansing. It's unacceptable; they need to stop making that choice, and other nations need to show a willingness to swiftly cut aid and ties to Israel whenever an ethnic cleanser ends up in the cabinet. Smotrich should be someone they're both unwilling to and afraid of having in cabinet. Ze'evi should've been enough of a lesson.
Ethnonationalism is a scourge across the world - nations must not try to be "about" a particular ethnicity.
I've done so at length, elsewhere. Indiscriminate violence goes beyond the justifiability - if they were to focus on settlements with abuse, it'd at least be focused. Anti-semitism in Palestinian schoolbooks needs to end. Having a coherent set of demands that are not excessive and that don't imagine their own ethnic cleansing of jewish people in Israel is important.
Again you avoid the point how ethnic nationalism put and end to interethnic conflicts some of which became genocidal in many parts of the world.
You simply refuse to contend with this fact because it runs counter to your worldview. Indeed, what we know as the velvet divorce was the result of ethnic nationalism. The most peaceful change in political borders in history was a scourge to you. You are simply stating your personal preference and should just admit it and stop trying to justify it on other bases.
It's not a real solution, and usually is paired with ethnic cleansing which is a huge human rights violation because ethnonationalism is racist and people living in a country that's explicitly about some other nation are going to face enough abuse that violence is inevitable. The velvet divorce was a disaster.
If the United States declared itself a "white homeland" and did the same kind of shit Israel does, I'd expect many of the Americans who are not well-described as white to be more prone to violence against the state. It'd be very predictable. Those of us with some jewish ancestry would have to worry if that were to happen here.
Besides the fact that no, it doesn’t usually come with ethnic cleansing, the former SSRs almost all have substantial Russian minorities. The idea that Estonian nationals of russian descent have a cause to engage in violence against the state simply because estonia is the nation-state of the estonian people is absurd. And the separation of Czechoslovakia was not a disaster.
America at its inception was a homeland for whites, as per their definition of the category. Jews were part of the category of “white” in the American context, so you don’t seem to know what to you’re talking about giving this example.
Most of the world has a sense of place in their homeland and prefer to protect and preserve their shared history and not be absorbed in an internationalist blob.
It used to be said and without any contention (and probably still is) that the reason African nations are consistently mired in ethnic conflict is because the colonial borders didn’t reflect tribal territories.
You decry the potential for ethnic cleansing yet completely ignore the weapon of war that is the calculated migration of ethnic nationals of the powers-that-be so as to exert control in multiethnic societies. Free Tibet no more according to you.
I think we were talking about Yugoslavia, not really the SSRs (which generally didn't adopt policies that resembled ethnonationalism). You're using a very broad notion of ethnonationalism, including countries that don't have different policies focused on favouring certain races. My notion is more narrow, focusing on the harmful aspects of countries like South Africa under apartheid and what we saw Israel do with its 2018 basic law on nationality.
The US at its inception is both irrelevant and not strongly an example of that. Ditto for the SSRs.
If you actually looked into the points you’re making not what you think you know about them, you would come to the conclusion that the Israeli nation state law is no meaningful way different than what is in the preambles of the constitutions of Estonia and Latvia, for example.
You brought up the hypothetical of the US being a state for white people, which it seems you didn’t realize was in fact the case for most of its history.
You are the one restricting the notion of ethnic nationalism to persecution. This is absurd. And I don’t believe you yourself believe it.
Estonia: No. Nothing in the preamble there resembles this.
Latvia: Not really, although there are some tinges.
The US never declared itself a nation for white people. Were it to do so today it would lead to violence, and it would be a deep flaw here.
Israel today is not the only nation with the deep flaw of ethnonationalism, but it is very strongly so and this is one of the drivers of violence in the area.
"They elect whom they choose" doesn't excuse electing people advocating ethnic cleansing. It's unacceptable; they need to stop making that choice, and other nations need to show a willingness to swiftly cut aid and ties to Israel whenever an ethnic cleanser ends up in the cabinet. Smotrich should be someone they're both unwilling to and afraid of having in cabinet. Ze'evi should've been enough of a lesson.
Ethnonationalism is a scourge across the world - nations must not try to be "about" a particular ethnicity.
I've done so at length, elsewhere. Indiscriminate violence goes beyond the justifiability - if they were to focus on settlements with abuse, it'd at least be focused. Anti-semitism in Palestinian schoolbooks needs to end. Having a coherent set of demands that are not excessive and that don't imagine their own ethnic cleansing of jewish people in Israel is important.
Again you avoid the point how ethnic nationalism put and end to interethnic conflicts some of which became genocidal in many parts of the world.
You simply refuse to contend with this fact because it runs counter to your worldview. Indeed, what we know as the velvet divorce was the result of ethnic nationalism. The most peaceful change in political borders in history was a scourge to you. You are simply stating your personal preference and should just admit it and stop trying to justify it on other bases.
It's not a real solution, and usually is paired with ethnic cleansing which is a huge human rights violation because ethnonationalism is racist and people living in a country that's explicitly about some other nation are going to face enough abuse that violence is inevitable. The velvet divorce was a disaster.
If the United States declared itself a "white homeland" and did the same kind of shit Israel does, I'd expect many of the Americans who are not well-described as white to be more prone to violence against the state. It'd be very predictable. Those of us with some jewish ancestry would have to worry if that were to happen here.
Besides the fact that no, it doesn’t usually come with ethnic cleansing, the former SSRs almost all have substantial Russian minorities. The idea that Estonian nationals of russian descent have a cause to engage in violence against the state simply because estonia is the nation-state of the estonian people is absurd. And the separation of Czechoslovakia was not a disaster.
America at its inception was a homeland for whites, as per their definition of the category. Jews were part of the category of “white” in the American context, so you don’t seem to know what to you’re talking about giving this example.
Most of the world has a sense of place in their homeland and prefer to protect and preserve their shared history and not be absorbed in an internationalist blob.
It used to be said and without any contention (and probably still is) that the reason African nations are consistently mired in ethnic conflict is because the colonial borders didn’t reflect tribal territories.
You decry the potential for ethnic cleansing yet completely ignore the weapon of war that is the calculated migration of ethnic nationals of the powers-that-be so as to exert control in multiethnic societies. Free Tibet no more according to you.
I think we were talking about Yugoslavia, not really the SSRs (which generally didn't adopt policies that resembled ethnonationalism). You're using a very broad notion of ethnonationalism, including countries that don't have different policies focused on favouring certain races. My notion is more narrow, focusing on the harmful aspects of countries like South Africa under apartheid and what we saw Israel do with its 2018 basic law on nationality.
The US at its inception is both irrelevant and not strongly an example of that. Ditto for the SSRs.
If you actually looked into the points you’re making not what you think you know about them, you would come to the conclusion that the Israeli nation state law is no meaningful way different than what is in the preambles of the constitutions of Estonia and Latvia, for example.
You brought up the hypothetical of the US being a state for white people, which it seems you didn’t realize was in fact the case for most of its history.
You are the one restricting the notion of ethnic nationalism to persecution. This is absurd. And I don’t believe you yourself believe it.
Estonia: No. Nothing in the preamble there resembles this.
Latvia: Not really, although there are some tinges.
The US never declared itself a nation for white people. Were it to do so today it would lead to violence, and it would be a deep flaw here.
Israel today is not the only nation with the deep flaw of ethnonationalism, but it is very strongly so and this is one of the drivers of violence in the area.