England is defined by political boundaries, not geographical ones. There was never a time in human history when the population of England was isolated enough from the rest of Europe—let alone the rest of Great Britain—to develop its own distinct genetic markers.


Mod Note: Since Israel is being discussed here, I want to make it clear that it is inappropriate to assume bad faith on the part of those who criticize the state just because they are criticizing the state. It would be naive to believe there are not forces at work in any state pushing for nationalistic viewpoints, and one important way to bring that to light is to discuss this fact, and it’s possible origins.

I completely understand that given the tragic history surrounding the creation of the state itself as well as the treatment of the Jewish people that such conversations can be difficult for some people, which is why I moved this to a non-frontpage topic.

If you feel a user is posting in bad faith based on context or post history, the correct course of action is to flag the post as “something else” and provide your thinking, or message a moderator directly. Do not instead target the poster directly in this conversation.

Thank you.


It’s interesting that discussions of Israel in the West tend to be so devoid of any kind of dialectic.

*Whistles Palestinianly*


It is a question that does not need a final solution. It is a question that needs reconsidering over and over again.

For example … what kind of hegemony does Thailand hold over Europe or “white people” aside from not wanting them as citizens ?

Probably not much. However, what kind of force and power does the US and “white” Europe wield over Thailand ?


Actually, there’s pretty good evidence that the early Zionists quite consciously did not want to create a state of the sort you describe:

Through five biographical chapters, Shumsky shows that from the late 19th century and up until World War I, prominent figures such as Leon Pinsker, Theodor Herzl, Ahad Ha’am and David Ben-Gurion—Israel’s first prime minister—all saw the future Jewish territorial unit in Palestine as a province of sorts within the multinational Ottoman Empire. After the establishment of the British Mandate over Palestine and until at least the late 1930s, Ahad Ha’am, Jabotinsky, and Ben-Gurion all supported a future Jewish state with a binational constitution of sorts, a state in which both Jews and Arabs will enjoy extensive political autonomy.


BS. Herzl’s thought was influenced directly by the Dreyfus Trial. They didn’t call any country an ethnostate back then, but that’s what establishment France in the late 19th century aspired to be. The idea gained more support after the Kishinev Pogrom of 1903, perpetrated by what were in essence Russian ultra-nationalists.

The actual state of Israel was finally founded because another aspiring ethnostate removed citizenship from millions of Jews as a prelude to killing them.

The original Zionist idea is not based in the idea of Israel as a homeland only for Jews, but as a nation-state where Jews in particular (and not just observant ones) would be welcome as citizens in full no matter what.

Over the years due to a mix of reasons (some legitimate, some not), that attitude has changed into the current twisted ethnostate concept promoted by Likud, its ultra-nationalist and religious fundie allies, and their American Xtianist friends into what we see today. It’s shameful.

Because they’ve been living under an endless state of hot and cold war with their Arab neighbours and with groups like Hamas and Hezbollah since 1948, and a colonial mentality during the British Mandate period.

Non-Jewish citizens in Israel are granted the same rights as Jewish ones, de jure if not de facto.

I never said they did. Depending on the circumstances, they often find other targets for the hate, which is a sine qua non of the ethnostate (South Africa being a good example). Anti-Semitism is something that sooner or later accompanies right-wing populist regimes.

Ironically, modern Israel sometimes engages in its own form of anti-Semitism. The religious fundies there often talk about instituting tests based on how devout a Jew is before he can become a citizen. You can imagine how well this goes over with secular and atheist Jews in the West.

Racist Iowa Republican Steve King asks why racism has such a negative stigma

That’s utter BS, too. Especially since the “they” you’re referring are discussed as the Jews who founded Israel as opposed to Israelis. If you think Theodore Herzl and David Ben Gurion and Golda Meir wanted to found a state where maniacs like Meir Kahane and his followers could go wild and where Jewish teenagers would feel free to stone an Arab woman to death (or, less fatally, throw stones at other Jews who dare drive on the Sabbath), you’re living in an alternate world. If you’re a Jew making that claim, I believe the Yiddish term is that you’re making a “shanda fur die goyim”. Either way, it’s an anti-Semitic calumny and is flagged as Inappropriate.

This site gives people a wide latitude for comment, but discussing an ethnostate that you claim to admire in these terms is not ok, whether or not it’s a Jewish state. I think our moderator @orenwolf will agree.

Also, don’t think we’ve forgotten about your refusal to answer the following questions. Before you bother responding to me, let’s hear them:


Indeed. Perhaps it will be the kind of ethnostate…

You know, like the vision @JimJim claims the Zionists had for their ethnostate.

closed #49

This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.