Netanyahu: "We'll surround Israel with a Fence!"

[Bakustra]

Simmer down, please. I seriously doubt that MarshallPurnell is actually advocating ethnically-based states in total seriousness, judging from his comments. He is talking about nation-states, which I do disagree are culturally exclusive, but declaring the United States as an example of a non-culturally exclusive state is immaterial to nation-states, which the US is not counted among.

The US isn't a nation state? What.

Oh, and with all respect, go shove it up your ass. His argument boils down to "all states are race states, ergo Israel is justified in being racist." Yeah, that isn't the kind of moral bankruptcy that deserves condemnation at all, is it?

No, not by common standards. I would argue that it is, but a nation-state requires both a government, the state, and a nation, a group of individuals with a common history, blahblahblah, that essentially boils down to ethnic groups in the end. The US, being fairly multiethnic, is therefore not counted as a nation-state, conventionally. Isn't political science fun?

Actually, I doubt that he is being totally serious, since his argument is on practicality for the most part. He also is actually questioning the value of culture, and, I think, making his argument from the stance of the people in power in Israel, et al. The actual start of this tangent was Grim Squeaker's declaration of "Jewishness", as in the declaration of the state of Israel, being a nebulous, all-inclusive definition. I was focusing on the religious argument. Out of curiosity, do you have access to sources about racial/ethnic discrimination in Israel? I was only able to find materials on religion, myself. Of course, if I am wrong, and he is arguing that any action is justified by defense of culture in total seriousness, then I preemptively apologize. I actually was making similar arguments to you, now that I think about it, so I retract the "simmer down" comment.

[Formless]

I actually was making similar arguments to you, now that I think about it, so I retract the "simmer down" comment.

Thank you.

No, not by common standards. I would argue that it is, but a nation-state requires both a government, the state, and a nation, a group of individuals with a common history, blahblahblah, that essentially boils down to ethnic groups in the end. The US, being fairly multiethnic, is therefore not counted as a nation-state, conventionally. Isn't political science fun?

How exactly is that definition practical? Why do we need that last part? The US fits the definition of nation in all other respects-- its a major world power for crying out loud. I would argue that the last part is just historical baggage, and irrelevant when talking about a nation-- it IS relevant when talking about a culture, however. The two are related, but not the same-- UNLESS you are a Nationalist, naturally.

Actually, I doubt that he is being totally serious, since his argument is on practicality for the most part. He also is actually questioning the value of culture, and, I think, making his argument from the stance of the people in power in Israel, et al. The actual start of this tangent was Grim Squeaker's declaration of "Jewishness", as in the declaration of the state of Israel, being a nebulous, all-inclusive definition. I was focusing on the religious argument.

And how does his argument defend that definition of Israel as "Jewish" without resorting to the kind of racism/nationalism I described? Unless he's not actually defending it, in which case, what is he trying to defend? I would love to know what you think it is this argument is about if not that. In fact, I would argue that the kind of racism/nationalism I describe flows naturally from that definition.

Out of curiosity, do you have access to sources about racial/ethnic discrimination in Israel? I was only able to find materials on religion, myself. Of course, if I am wrong, and he is arguing that any action is justified by defense of culture in total seriousness, then I preemptively apologize.

I don't have anything on hand, but I know someone who might. I'm not sure if I can necessarily vouch for the impartiality that person's sources, unfortunately. Sorry.

[Bakustra]

I actually was making similar arguments to you, now that I think about it, so I retract the "simmer down" comment.

Thank you.

No, not by common standards. I would argue that it is, but a nation-state requires both a government, the state, and a nation, a group of individuals with a common history, blahblahblah, that essentially boils down to ethnic groups in the end. The US, being fairly multiethnic, is therefore not counted as a nation-state, conventionally. Isn't political science fun?

How exactly is that definition practical? Why do we need that last part? The US fits the definition of nation in all other respects-- its a major world power for crying out loud. I would argue that the last part is just historical baggage, and irrelevant when talking about a nation-- it IS relevant when talking about a culture, however. The two are related, but not the same-- UNLESS you are a Nationalist, naturally.

Eh? It's not a value judgment on the US. I don't make this stuff up, you know, or swear by it either. The term "nation" is used to describe groups like the Kurds, the Uighur, the Tamils in Sri Lanka, and other distinct groups that have independence movements and yet lack an independent state. Ultimately, the colloquial definition differs massively from the expert definition, but it is still based essentially on ethnicity.

Actually, I doubt that he is being totally serious, since his argument is on practicality for the most part. He also is actually questioning the value of culture, and, I think, making his argument from the stance of the people in power in Israel, et al. The actual start of this tangent was Grim Squeaker's declaration of "Jewishness", as in the declaration of the state of Israel, being a nebulous, all-inclusive definition. I was focusing on the religious argument.

And how does his argument defend that definition of Israel as "Jewish" without resorting to the kind of racism/nationalism I described? Unless he's not actually defending it, in which case, what is he trying to defend? I would love to know what you think it is this argument is about if not that. In fact, I would also point out that the kind of racist/nationalist style prejudice I describe flows naturally from that definition.

He's defending (I presume from a more devil's advocaty position) the notion that culture should be preserved at the expense of subcultures, or more broadly, that the main culture of a nation-state is the nation-state's reason for existence. The Israel argument is separate, and more about whether Israel is de facto equal in its treatment of religious and ethnic minorities, in keeping with its de jure declarations of equality.

Out of curiosity, do you have access to sources about racial/ethnic discrimination in Israel? I was only able to find materials on religion, myself. Of course, if I am wrong, and he is arguing that any action is justified by defense of culture in total seriousness, then I preemptively apologize.

I don't have anything on hand, but I know someone who might. I'm not sure if I can necessarily vouch for the impartiality that person's sources, unfortunately. Sorry.

Ooh. Oh well. Thanks anyways.

[Formless]

Eh? It's not a value judgment on the US. I don't make this stuff up, you know, or swear by it either. The term "nation" is used to describe groups like the Kurds, the Uighur, the Tamils in Sri Lanka, and other distinct groups that have independence movements and yet lack an independent state. Ultimately, the colloquial definition differs massively from the expert definition, but it is still based essentially on ethnicity.

I don't doubt you don't make this stuff up, but I also think that it doesn't have to be based on ethnicity. Historically it was, but with the establishment of the US (or for that matter, many of the states in South America) that definition stopped being an accurate description of reality.

He's defending (I presume from a more devil's advocaty position) the notion that culture should be preserved at the expense of subcultures, or more broadly, that the main culture of a nation-state is the nation-state's reason for existence. The Israel argument is separate, and more about whether Israel is de facto equal in its treatment of religious and ethnic minorities, in keeping with its de jure declarations of equality.

Ah. So we ARE on the same page, you just haven't realized it yet. How do you think you preserve the main culture of a nation if not by suppressing and being prejudiced against the subcultures? Or foreigners?

By the way, personally I never assume that someone is taking a devils advocate position unless they say they are. You would be surprised what some people will say with a straight face.

Ooh. Oh well. Thanks anyways.

You are welcome.

[eyl]

If Israel continues to humiliate other nations and their ambassadors, fencing themselves in might be a smart idea. It certainly is no more stupid than to publicly humiliate other countries.

I read about that.
My first thought was 'how petty'.

Given the Turks' statements (primarily Erdoğan's) and actions over the last year - which weren't exactly diplomatic in themselves - it's not necessarily a wrong response. Frankly, I've been thinking for months that we need to enact some form of diplomatic payback (granted, I'd have chosen something more subtle), and recalling our own ambassador may not have gotten the proper message across.

So it really depends what the thinking behind humiliating the ambassador - a move which could backlash - was. Was the decision made rationally, to signal that our patience and willingness to undergo continual public verbal attacks is not unlimited? Or was the decision made out of pique? Unfortunately, from what I know of Lieberman I suspect the answer is the latter.

[eyl]

Well, based at least on initial reports in this morning's Haaretz, look like it didn't work out so well. We'll have to see what the long-term effect is.

[Bellator]

Following the Germany for Germans line, isn't that exactly what racists/xenophobes there have been shouting for decades? Deutschland für Deutscher, ausländer raus? And AFAIK, these groups have only received widespread condemnation there, and no support from the government. How is that any different from "Israel for Jews, immigrants stay out?" How is it less racist/xenophobic in Israel's case? I don't get how people can defend it.

Another example would be Belgium's Vlaams Blok, with their slogan "Eigen volk eerst" (our own people first). They receive a large number of votes, but also international condemnation and no mainstream party in Belgium wants to work with them. Why are they wrong, and the Israelis right?

[The Grim Squeaker]

Following the Germany for Germans line, isn't that exactly what racists/xenophobes there have been shouting for decades? Deutschland für Deutscher, ausländer raus? And AFAIK, these groups have only received widespread condemnation there, and no support from the government. How is that any different from "Israel for Jews, immigrants stay out?" How is it less racist/xenophobic in Israel's case? I don't get how people can defend it.

The fact that they let immigrants in? Israel isn't anti immigration, the bias is one of a positive favour rather than negative discrimination. (Normal immigrants have a less taxing process than that needed to go to America for example, as far as I know).
(It might be similiar but it's not the same. A tax on non christians is negative discrimination, while free scholarships and higher education for immigrants from Ethiopia is positive discrimination, even if it might make university schooling more expensive if you're not from the Flashmura. Quite acceptable when justified in my opinion).

The right of return is meant to encourage Jews to immigrate (which is biased, no argument about that core fact), but the reason it was started and instated was to let Jews being persecuted/killed/pogromed a way to get the fuck out of wherever they were quickly. (And it was needed many times since the states inception. For the Jews from the rest of the Middle East, Africa, even a large wave from France after the riots a few years ago).

How about the fact that America discriminates against people with less education or resources when it comes to getting Green cards. It's classist! How dare they prefer English speakers! Or Engineers! Or humanitarian refugees!

[Bakustra]

Eh? It's not a value judgment on the US. I don't make this stuff up, you know, or swear by it either. The term "nation" is used to describe groups like the Kurds, the Uighur, the Tamils in Sri Lanka, and other distinct groups that have independence movements and yet lack an independent state. Ultimately, the colloquial definition differs massively from the expert definition, but it is still based essentially on ethnicity.

I don't doubt you don't make this stuff up, but I also think that it doesn't have to be based on ethnicity. Historically it was, but with the establishment of the US (or for that matter, many of the states in South America) that definition stopped being an accurate description of reality.

You misunderstand. Nation, in this sense, has little to do with statehood. States are the actual, formal countries. There are nationless states (the US is widely considered one) and stateless nations (the Kurds). The definition is ridiculous, because of the presence of multiple languages and ethnic groups within most of the so-called "nation-states" of Europe. Either the US is a nation-state, then, and only truly recently (<20 years ago) formed countries are not nation-states, or the only nation-states are places like Bhutan.

He's defending (I presume from a more devil's advocaty position) the notion that culture should be preserved at the expense of subcultures, or more broadly, that the main culture of a nation-state is the nation-state's reason for existence. The Israel argument is separate, and more about whether Israel is de facto equal in its treatment of religious and ethnic minorities, in keeping with its de jure declarations of equality.

Ah. So we ARE on the same page, you just haven't realized it yet. How do you think you preserve the main culture of a nation if not by suppressing and being prejudiced against the subcultures? Or foreigners?

By the way, personally I never assume that someone is taking a devils advocate position unless they say they are. You would be surprised what some people will say with a straight face.

I actually assume that he's being less serious because he admits to flaws with the idea of the nation-state, and is arguing, as you said, from more of an is-ought position.

As for the preservation of a national culture, I think that it preserves itself quite handily. The presence of immigrants and subcultures simply means that the culture will evolve, much as it does in the face of technological change. The simple fact is that generally, immigrants (or rather their children) tend to adopt the primary culture of their new home, though they also contribute back to it in the form of ethnic restaurants, new holidays, literature and art from their previous home, etc.; save when something happens to interrupt this, generally in the form of racial discrimination or disenfranchisement. That's part of why France has its problems with riots regularly, and part of why Native Americans and African Americans are often hostile towards the majority culture. In the case of the US, the barriers of discrimination and disenfranchisement have been lowered, but aren't gone, while France has a large, disenfranchised group of second-class citizens.

Following the Germany for Germans line, isn't that exactly what racists/xenophobes there have been shouting for decades? Deutschland für Deutscher, ausländer raus? And AFAIK, these groups have only received widespread condemnation there, and no support from the government. How is that any different from "Israel for Jews, immigrants stay out?" How is it less racist/xenophobic in Israel's case? I don't get how people can defend it.

The fact that they let immigrants in? Israel isn't anti immigration, the bias is one of a positive favour rather than negative discrimination. (Normal immigrants have a less taxing process than that needed to go to America for example, as far as I know).
(It might be similiar but it's not the same. A tax on non christians is negative discrimination, while free scholarships and higher education for immigrants from Ethiopia is positive discrimination, even if it might make university schooling more expensive if you're not from the Flashmura. Quite acceptable when justified in my opinion).

The right of return is meant to encourage Jews to immigrate (which is biased, no argument about that core fact), but the reason it was started and instated was to let Jews being persecuted/killed/pogromed a way to get the fuck out of wherever they were quickly. (And it was needed many times since the states inception. For the Jews from the rest of the Middle East, Africa, even a large wave from France after the riots a few years ago).

How about the fact that America discriminates against people with less education or resources when it comes to getting Green cards. It's classist! How dare they prefer English speakers! Or Engineers! Or humanitarian refugees!

Before you go too far, I will point out that many people, especially here, do criticize the American immigration services. Also, they do not prefer humanitarian refugees, or at least not until recently, potentially. Please know a little something about the subject before you go off on half-baked sarcasm about it. Secondly, there are potential justifications why you would discriminate on classist grounds or grounds of education.

My problem with the Right of Return is that it is set up so that you can immigrate under the law and immediately become a second-class citizen unless you convert to Orthodox Judaism. In fact, even if Christians and other religious minorities were treated right as pie, the overall discrimination against Reform, Conservative, Reconstructionist, and Messianic traditions is frankly pretty awful. Similarly, the fact that you cannot marry in Israel unless you belong to a recognized religious group means that atheists, non-Orthodox Jews that aren't "Jewish" enough for the Orthodox, Buddhists, Hindus, evangelical Protestant Christians, and smaller religions are forbidden from marrying or divorcing within the country's borders. Furthermore, if you don't meet the Orthodox standard, you are forbidden from being buried after you die. 4.2% of the population is Jewish, but not enough so for the Orthodox standards. That would be like the US banning Asian-Americans from marrying, divorcing, or being buried in a cemetery. Well, you might say that you can convert, but if the US required you to be a Lutheran to be a citizen, you could convert then, too. That doesn't make it any better.

[Darth Yan]

with current birth rates, arabs will inevitably outnumber the jews. I can't help but feel that Grim squeker doesn't like arabs immigrating to israel at all

also it's hypocritical bringing up the "refuge card" considering that he Israelis drove the arabs in israel out of their homes through ethnic cleansing, terrorism, and murder.

[Formless]

I would like to point out that there is one simple, but essential thing Israel is doing wrong, even if we set aside whatever crimes or biases that exist in their other policies: separation of church and state. This is explicit in their whole reason for existence. Sure, Judaism is an ethnicity as well as a religion, but you can file that away as one of the inherently tribal aspects of the Abrahamic religions (one which can be seen in the old testament/torah, even though it got dropped by the christians and muslims). If you aren't Jewish, they don't want you. I would argue that no First World country has an excuse for allowing religion to effect its politics because it inevitably leads to prejudice and oppression of groups that are not a part of the favored religion. The degree of prejudice is immaterial: they might not have a blasphemy law like, say, Ireland (as far as I know), but the underlying problem is the same.

[Simon_Jester]

I think it would be reasonable for them to invoke the ethnicity separate from the favored religion if they could do it and were willing to. Being "the people who went through all this because they were Jews" is a fairly significant identity in its own right, even for people who aren't practicing Jews.

[Glocksman]

If Israel continues to humiliate other nations and their ambassadors, fencing themselves in might be a smart idea. It certainly is no more stupid than to publicly humiliate other countries.

I read about that.
My first thought was 'how petty'.

Given the Turks' statements (primarily Erdoğan's) and actions over the last year - which weren't exactly diplomatic in themselves - it's not necessarily a wrong response. Frankly, I've been thinking for months that we need to enact some form of diplomatic payback (granted, I'd have chosen something more subtle), and recalling our own ambassador may not have gotten the proper message across.

So it really depends what the thinking behind humiliating the ambassador - a move which could backlash - was. Was the decision made rationally, to signal that our patience and willingness to undergo continual public verbal attacks is not unlimited? Or was the decision made out of pique? Unfortunately, from what I know of Lieberman I suspect the answer is the latter.

It may or may not have been justified.
That said, to this somewhat average American who really doesn't know much of Turkish/Israeli relations beyond the fact that historically Turkey is one of the few muslim countries to even talk to them and that Turkey is a NATO member, it comes off as frankly fucking childish.

Does Sarah Palin run the Foreign Ministry of Israel?
IOW while I woudn't have been surprised in the least to read about some shithole like North Korea pulling such an immature stunt, I was both surprised and disappointed that Israel would lower itself to that level.

[Thanas]

Given the Turks' statements (primarily Erdoğan's) and actions over the last year - which weren't exactly diplomatic in themselves - it's not necessarily a wrong response. Frankly, I've been thinking for months that we need to enact some form of diplomatic payback (granted, I'd have chosen something more subtle), and recalling our own ambassador may not have gotten the proper message across.

What did Erdogan say? AFAIK he critizised the Gaza killings, something that is not objectionable IMO.

So it really depends what the thinking behind humiliating the ambassador - a move which could backlash - was. Was the decision made rationally, to signal that our patience and willingness to undergo continual public verbal attacks is not unlimited?

it is quite funny that a country that screams about "ZOMG. NAZIS RETURNING" everytime a western politician dares to critizise it now feels attacked by public statements. Israel should grow up.

[MarshalPurnell]

One claim made in the thread is that the proclamation of Israel as a Jewish state is inherently discriminatory and injurious to the Arab minority. My point, and the lengthy digression it has spawned, is that this claim carries a significant implication about the nature of the nation-state and I was trying to explore that in further depth and with greater abstraction.

Since there seems to be some sort of confusion on terminology, I will elaborate: A state is a government that exercises sovereignty over a particular area, whereas a nation is a group of people who speak the same language, share a common history, partake in a common culture, and view themselves as a collective. A nation-state then is a state that encompasses the existence of a particular nation, as a consequence of nationalist movements and rearrangement of traditional borders to incorporate single nations. To try and simplify, the state is a government and the nation is a distinct ethnic group. Of course there are significant exceptions and the process whereby the nation defines itself is usually equivocal and tinged with circumstance and irrationality, but the existence of a nation can usually be determined on a subjective basis with a very high degree of confidence across many observers. Few would disagree that the French or Germans or English or Spanish or Dutch or Russians or Italians or Slovaks or Poles or so on form compact national groups that meet the definition, though the role of regional identities complicates matters. On the whole however Prussians and Bavarians have a lot more in common with each other and far more differences with their neighbors, and were it not the case one would see the fraying-off of a new nation as happened with the Dutch in the 16th century. It is a very messy process that is highly irrational and subject to all kinds of circumstantial happenings, but nonetheless distinct nations exist and will almost certainly continue to exist.

The nation-state then, by definition, is based around the concept of the nation. There are differences in perception of what makes up the nation, with greater and lesser emphasis on culture versus "rootedness." Leaving aside post-ethnic nations like the US and other ex-British settler societies, France presents the greatest example of a nation that emphasizes a cultural existence rather than an ethnic existence. France has long welcomed the participation of foreigners in its national and cultural life, and been much enriched for it - but it does so on terms set by the corpus of French culture. In other words it is highly open to assimilation but still sets the terms on which that assimilation happens, with an aim to maintaining the broad integrity of a distinctively French culture and nation. The other concept is völkisch and thus largely (if not necessarily) racial in overtones, and is of course a product of 19th century Germany. It defines the nation by its common existence through history, closeness of language, shared heritage and general "rootedness" in a particular territory. It justifiably has a bad reputation precisely because of how Germany behaved in the 20th century, but frankly it is perhaps still the most influential idea of the nation outside of Western Europe. The Bumiputera scheme of Malaysia for example is a classic case of where the völkisch idea of the nation is given free reign, in its fullest exclusive consequences. But it is also merely the most egregious example; it persists in the Third World without question, probably defines the nation for Eastern Europe with its attitudes towards Roma and Jews and other outsiders, and still has some strength as seen with populist anti-immigrant sentiment in countries like France, Germany, and the UK.

It is a pretty simple matter to say that völkisch sentiment is merely reactionary tribalism. The cultural definition seems much less cut and dry. To run with France for a bit longer, it clearly allows and encourages peoples of every race and religion to assimilate themselves into its culture. Indeed France has always been proud of the broad appeal of its culture and the diversity of peoples that have taken it up. But those people are still speaking French, embracing French perspectives on history and culture, and adhering to a canon selected for its appeal to French aesthetic and value judgments. Inevitably there is a definition that is exclusive; this much is French, and this much is not. The French government devotes significant effort to promoting what it deems as cultural expressions complimentary to the French canon, and to fortifying the position of the French language at home and abroad. The ability of people to assimilate is a priority in French (and indeed all) immigration policies, which have restrictions that are certainly an expression of the exclusiveness of the nation. Shouting, as the Le Pens do, that "France is for the French" is both crude and completely unnecessary since the dominant position of the French within their nation-state is simply not open to question, and undermines the efficacy of that assimilation process. But that does not mean that France is not, at heart, a French state. It privileges French as the language of government, economy, and society, it provides an education that privileges the French perspective, it subsidizes art that privileges French culture, and encourages immigrants to assimilate themselves into a French life- its existence absolutely privileges the French nation.

Is that wrong? If it is the case that nation-states by their nature oppress minorities then I suppose so. It is certainly the case that some nation-states do oppress minorities in the name of maintaining cultural/ethnic integrity. It is also the case that many more minority peoples (and potential nations) feel themselves oppressed by the majority peoples of nation-states. But is it a matter of degree or is it something inherent in the existence of the nation-state? The actions of the Académie française and, say, the Turkish government in banning the use of Kurdish in broadcasting are clearly of very different degrees but both ultimately aim at preserving the integrity of the nation from influences that have been excluded in the process of defining it. Even if not equally wrong, are they both inherently wrong? Is the existence of France as a French state, then, the same kind of wrong as the proclamation of Israel as a Jewish state? Or are there some actions that are permissible to perpetuate the existence of a national culture and the nation-state?

As the exercise that troubles me on this, how does one define France except as a French state? Is there a possible definition that uses neither culture nor ethnicity to define a state as truly distinct? There are government institutions and territorial boundaries of course, but those are (relatively speaking) accidents of history, particulars distinct from essence. Using the example of the United States (besides infuriating the French) is troublesome because its political religion and particularism looks very much like a national culture; though the ideals underlining that political religion are 18th century Enlightenment ideals that are (supposedly) universally applicable, and its culture is incredibly mutable and open to influences from pretty much any angle whatsoever. Is the distinct existence of the state (to say nothing of the nation-state) thus rendered an artifact of relatively random and irrational factors that should be discarded for expediency?

In any case, such are the issues raised for me by the issue of Israel as a Jewish state.

[bobalot]

How about the fact that America discriminates against people with less education or resources when it comes to getting Green cards. It's classist! How dare they prefer English speakers! Or Engineers! Or humanitarian refugees!

Are you seriously comparing a skilled migration scheme with ethnic discrimination?

[Gil Hamilton]

My problem with your argument, Marshall, is that alot of the states you mentioned don't behave that way.

Take Germany, which you mention repeatedly. Nowadays, modern Germans have some really serious hangups about the notion that Germany is for ethnic Germans as opposed to outsiders. This is right and proper, after all, as you note, Germany behaved very poorly the last time they tried the notion that Germany was only for their ethnicity. The irony to this thread should not be lost; you'd think the Israelis would be the last people to go "Israel is for Jews only and only Jews should be encouraged to live here!" After all, the culmination of Germany's last foray into nationalism nearly made Jews in Europe an extinct breed.

I also don't think the French care THAT much if you are ethnically French. They certainly care that you are culturally French, but that isn't exactly what you are talking about.

I think you'd have a more fruitful discussion if you used Japan as an example, which for which being ethnically Japanese in addition to culturally Japanese and linguistically Japanese is a big freakin' deal and part of their national identity. By your definition, Japan is a really excellent example of what you are talking about. However, I would suspect that it also wouldn't be the first country on your list for DEFENDING such behavior, even if it is exactly what you are talking about.

But anyway, Israel should, of all people, know better. They spent all those centuries being the whipped dog of Europe, culminating in a pogrom of horrifying scale that resulted in millions of Jewish deaths. It absolutely is a valid criticism of Israel, therefore, that to moment they were granted their own state, they turned around and declared it a Jewish state of the Jews only and started making other people their whipped dogs in the region.

Further, chances are Israel isn't going to even BE majority Jewish for much longer, because frankly, they aren't making enough little Hebrews to compete with the local Arabs. The only Jews in Israel that are really breeding are the really Orthodox ones, the rest have a declining birth rate like most Western nations have. In 20 years, Israel had better start thinking about abandoning the notion of it being a Jewish state or prepare to be increasingly draconian to preserve that status. Somehow, I think the latter is alot more likely, given that Orthodox influence is only going to get stronger as time goes on.

[Simon_Jester]

My problem with your argument, Marshall, is that alot of the states you mentioned don't behave that way.

Take Germany, which you mention repeatedly. Nowadays, modern Germans have some really serious hangups about the notion that Germany is for ethnic Germans as opposed to outsiders. This is right and proper, after all, as you note, Germany behaved very poorly the last time they tried the notion that Germany was only for their ethnicity. The irony to this thread should not be lost; you'd think the Israelis would be the last people to go "Israel is for Jews only and only Jews should be encouraged to live here!" After all, the culmination of Germany's last foray into nationalism nearly made Jews in Europe an extinct breed.

To be fair, this happened largely because the Germans then decided to redefine "Germany" as "everything we can grab, plus a million square kilometers of room to expand into later." The Israeli Jews are at least slightly less ambitious.

I also don't think the French care THAT much if you are ethnically French. They certainly care that you are culturally French, but that isn't exactly what you are talking about.

True, although the two can be closely associated: remember the history textbooks passed out to schools in French colonies that began "Our ancestors, the Gauls..."

But anyway, Israel should, of all people, know better. They spent all those centuries being the whipped dog of Europe, culminating in a pogrom of horrifying scale that resulted in millions of Jewish deaths. It absolutely is a valid criticism of Israel, therefore, that to moment they were granted their own state, they turned around and declared it a Jewish state of the Jews only and started making other people their whipped dogs in the region.

Agreed.

[MarshalPurnell]

Japan was too obvious of an example where the völkisch definition of the nation prevails. France and Germany both rely more upon a cultural definition of the nation than not. However in the end of the day both are nation-states where the background assumptions of governance, education, and culture are defined by those people who are part of the nation. It would be silly to my mind to deny that Germany is a German state, or to say that France is not a French state whose existence serves the French nation. Both were chosen to contrast with the much blunter and cruder Israeli declaration of itself as a Jewish state - the degree to which nationality is stressed is different, the degree to which people can assimilate is different, but the underlying essence is still that of the nation-state.

I will say there's a difference between "Israel is a Jewish state" and "Israel is a state only for Jews." The very fact that the Israelis did not comprehensively expel all non-Jews is what drives their concern with the demographic stability of their nation-state. If the Israeli Arabs were not 20% of the population and growing fast they could be much more sanguine about the future of Israel as a Jewish state. The actions they are taking to insure the Arabs remain a minority are largely preferential treatment of Jews as immigrants and restrictions on other immigration, which does not entail violence (other than metaphorical) against the existing minority population. One can compare it to White Australia and Apartheid (though it is not comparable to South Africa in extent and brutality) but also to Malaysian Bumiputera policies or Japanese immigration policies.

The underlying result, though, is still the same as more benign or less interventionist policies elsewhere, in so far as the nation-state remains the preserve of the dominant nation. Is the problem an issue of the methods Israel chooses, or is it an underlying problem with the idea of the nation-state?

[Gil Hamilton]

To be fair, this happened largely because the Germans then decided to redefine "Germany" as "everything we can grab, plus a million square kilometers of room to expand into later." The Israeli Jews are at least slightly less ambitious.

For certain Orthodox Israelis, that's only because "Greater Israel" isn't plus a million square kilometers. They still do consider the land granted to them by Yahoo to be much larger than the land granted to them by the British/UN. These people certainly have power within the Israeli government.

You'll note, for example, that no part of Jerusalem was part of Israel when Israel was created.

True, although the two can be closely associated: remember the history textbooks passed out to schools in French colonies that began "Our ancestors, the Gauls..."

The Gauls certainly were a big part of French history. However, you don't need to be descended from Gauls to be French, even historically. The Normans weren't Gauls, after all, they were Norsemen who settled the area, but certainly became French. Nowadays, you don't even need to be European to be French. One of our graduate students here in my department is just as much a French citizen with all the rights, et al of a Frenchman descended from a Merovingean king, and he's ethnically African.

Japan was too obvious of an example where the völkisch definition of the nation prevails. France and Germany both rely more upon a cultural definition of the nation than not. However in the end of the day both are nation-states where the background assumptions of governance, education, and culture are defined by those people who are part of the nation. It would be silly to my mind to deny that Germany is a German state, or to say that France is not a French state whose existence serves the French nation. Both were chosen to contrast with the much blunter and cruder Israeli declaration of itself as a Jewish state - the degree to which nationality is stressed is different, the degree to which people can assimilate is different, but the underlying essence is still that of the nation-state.

I still think Japan is a better comparison to use than France or Germany. With Germany, they have severe hangups with Germany existing for Germans. They very famously tried that a few times and the result is history, including the history of Israel, but it was a failure. I doubt you'd get alot of Germans nowadays to go on record and state that Germany exists for their benefit and is their state as opposed to German citizens who aren't ethnically German. Its simply not in their character anymore.

With France, well, like I said above, being French doesn't mean you are descended from Gauls. Perhaps being a snob is in French character, but that extends across all ethnicities.

Japan, on the other hand, fits what you are talking about exactly. Being ethnically Japanese IS a big deal and the Japanese government pretty openly exists for the benefit of the Japanese (as opposed to say, Koreans, who have severe problems living in Japan). However, in Japan, like in Israel, it boils down to simple prejudice and that is not a good thing. In fact, given their own history, it's something they should know better. That's why people find it objectionable that Israel defines itself as a Jewish state. They certainly didn't like it when THEY were defined as the outsides and were ground under the boot.

Also, being a nation-state as you describe is KILLING Japan. Because Japan is so set on serving ethnic Japanese and doing that nation-state thing, they are suffering the worst from an aging population because they aren't making enough babies and their own policies discourage fresh blood from elsewhere to pollute their sacred gene pool. Way to go, nation-state.

I will say there's a difference between "Israel is a Jewish state" and "Israel is a state only for Jews." The very fact that the Israelis did not comprehensively expel all non-Jews is what drives their concern with the demographic stability of their nation-state. If the Israeli Arabs were not 20% of the population and growing fast they could be much more sanguine about the future of Israel as a Jewish state. The actions they are taking to insure the Arabs remain a minority are largely preferential treatment of Jews as immigrants and restrictions on other immigration, which does not entail violence (other than metaphorical) against the existing minority population. One can compare it to White Australia and Apartheid (though it is not comparable to South Africa in extent and brutality) but also to Malaysian Bumiputera policies or Japanese immigration policies.

They certainly made an effort early on. When Israel was first formed and there was alot of fighting, what was the Palestinean middle class decided to get out of dodge for a few weeks for things to settle down and when they attempted to come back, they found they weren't allowed to return because their homes had been stolen by Jewish settlers or bulldozed. The Palestinean right to return is a maor concern and the EXACT STATED REASON is that "Israel is for the Jews and if they grant Right to Return to the people they drove out, then they are afraid it won't be a Jewish state much longer.

Further, I'm not sure how you can say that it didn't entail violence; the Israelies helped INVENT modern terrorism to drive out Arabs. They sent heavily armed settlements into land that wasn't part of Israel because they believe that it's the Holy Land granted to them by Yahoo and thus they have the right to send armed settlements anywhere they please (supported by the government until relatively recently). Oh, yeah, and the first thing on the Israeli agenda was the conquer Jerusalem by force and make it a Jewish city, even though it wasn't part of the original state.

Even with all that, they STILL have demographics problems because immigration policy isn't making up for the fact that they just aren't making enough Hebrew babies with the exception of their fundamentalists and immigration isn't making up the difference. This makes the "Israel is a Jewish State" thing something that is going to bite them in the ass, because with current trends, the only option that will make their survival the most likely is to give up being a Jewish state and instead being a secular Israeli one which treats Arabs/et al equally. One of the more damning arguments I heard for Israel just giving up on Gaza and the West Bank entirely was from a conservative Israeli who stated that holding on the Occupied Territories only speeds up the process to where they have to chose between giving up on Israel being Jewish or become Apartheid South Africa and thus become a pariah state.

The underlying result, though, is still the same as more benign or less interventionist policies elsewhere, in so far as the nation-state remains the preserve of the dominant nation. Is the problem an issue of the methods Israel chooses, or is it an underlying problem with the idea of the nation-state?

I would say both.

[hongi]

I think I would have much less of a problem with Israel if it was a state of Jews rather than a state for Jews.

I know there's a problem because pretty soon it becomes a state of some Jews and some Arabs, and then perhaps a state of Arabs with minority Jews, but unless you pull out some restrictive population controls on the Arabs (which would be met with an Intifada that would make the previous ones pale in comparison), I don't see how that can be avoided, even in the present scenario where Israel is a state for the Jews.

[Gil Hamilton]

I think I would have much less of a problem with Israel if it was a state of Jews rather than a state for Jews.

I know there's a problem because pretty soon it becomes a state of some Jews and some Arabs, and then perhaps a state of Arabs with minority Jews, but unless you pull out some restrictive population controls on the Arabs (which would be met with an Intifada that would make the previous ones pale in comparison), I don't see how that can be avoided, even in the present scenario where Israel is a state for the Jews.

To add some demographic numbers to this, it's already become a state of some Jews and some Arabs. The percentage of Israels population that is Arab (~20%) is about the percentage of the population of the United States of the next TWO most common minority (Latinos and Blacks respectively, which are 15 and 13 percent of the population). At a certain point, they are just going to have to put paid the notion that Israel was granted to the Jews by God and make a secular state, or they are going to have to become South Africa and suffer the consequences.

[Vastatosaurus Rex]

Wouldn't a real Jewish state be one where the government was based on Judaism---in other words, a theocracy? If so, Israel in its current form doesn't really qualify as "Jewish" any more than America qualifies as "Christian", since Israel professes to be a representative democracy rather than a theocracy.

[Darth Yan]

The whole concept of a "Jews only" state is inherently racist. I mentioned once that my cousin's grandfather had to leave thanks to jewish paramilitaries. In addition, Jews are allowed to vote while arabs are not (in the territories). I used to be more open, then I realized I just didn't want to think anything bad about judaism at all (which is silly since every religion has flaws.) I also read Darth Wong's essay. I remember having the fanwhore attitude back in 2007, and quite frankly feel ashamed about it, especially when I mindlessly advocated it. I outgrew it around the time I turned 15.

[Vastatosaurus Rex]

The whole concept of a "Jews only" state is inherently racist.

Sorry to get pedantic, but while I agree that it is inherently exclusive and bigoted, "racist" isn't the right word here. Judaism is a religion, not a race.