5 ms·

Looks like we disagree axiomatically about certain things. But life is short, so I'll just respond to one particular item for now: The only problem is that so

Looks like we disagree axiomatically about certain things. But life is short, so I'll just respond to one particular item for now: The only problem is that some pushing for Arab nationalism couldn't stomach the existence of Israel or Jews in general. No, the "only problem" was a bunch of armed foreigners attempting to carve an ethnostate out of their ancestral territory. They could have been Greek, Italian, Russian, Turkish, Persian -- it wouldn't have mattered a bit. It was the usurpation of their land, their resources and their rights that took issue with, and rightly so. So no, it wasn't "because antisemitism".

raxxorraxor 2y ago
We do indeed disagree on premises. Arab nationalism was first founded in the 19th century and directed against Turks. Later it had other ambitions of course. And yes, the idea was the foundation of an ethnostate. Pretty much was you accuse Israel of being, while it simply is not true.
- runarberg 2y ago
  This narrative is ahistorical. The nationalism movements of the 19th century were all over the world, and against most empires, not just the Ottomans. So the new found Arab nationalism was new, just like Serbian or Greek nationalism was new, we also had a new found Irish nationalism and even Icelandic nationalism in the 19th century. Even zionism started as a 19th century ideology. Nor was the nationalism movements of the 19th century necessary a call for an ethnostate. It was first and foremost a call against empires and for own governments over own nation states. When there were calls for ethno-demographic policies to maintain a supremacy of one ethnicity over others, those were aside policies which differed among proponents of nationalism. These policies were equally—if not more—prominent among empires, than nation states. Even among zionists, only a portion of the original 19th century zionists actually wanted to displace Palestinians (or other indigenous populations of wherever they would establish the jewish state) upon migration. That is only a portion of zionists wanted an ethnostate. So no, nationalists of the 19th century—arabs, europeans, and others—did not necessarily want an ethnostate. EDIT: That all said, it is a bit odd to excuse a very real and existing ethnostate, by citing a theoretical ethnostate which never actually existed and at best had very limited support among the public and rulers at the time.
  - raxxorraxor 2y ago
    It is neither a narrative nor ahistorical in contrast to your claims. A 10 minute walk through Israel would significantly deny your suggestion about it being an ethnostate. That isn't some misinformation on your part, it is just a malicious lie.
    - racional 2y ago
      A 10 minute walk through Israel ... "But the dominant group in Israel has internal diversity; therefore it can't be the dominant group" -- is that the counterargument, here?
      - raxxorraxor 2y ago
        No, that would be contradiction. Do you try to imply that a country having a "dominant group" is something that would form an ethnostate? Perhaps I lazily assumed the parent would refer to ethnicity when throwing the accusation of an ethnostate around? Which ethnicity would that refer to in your opinion? It should be possible to answer that question if the accusation is in any way substantial. Some ethnicities (and religions for that matter) might have serious problems in the wider region. Many do flee to Israel for safety in that case. That is the reality here and I would say that this fact is pretty hard to dispute without pointing fingers at less fortunate circumstances that maybe lead to less tolerance than there is in Israel.
        racional 2y ago
        That a country having a "dominant group" is something that would form an ethnostate? Of course the fact of one group being dominant is not sufficient; there need to be deeply structural (legal) mechanisms in place for that group to maintain its dominance, which has certainly been the case with Israel since its very founding. You may consult the definitions in Wikipedia as to "ethnostate" and "ethnic group" for further detail if you wish. Which ethnicity would that refer to in your opinion? The one referred to in Sections 1, 5, 6 and 7 (and whose language is given preferential treatment in Section 4) of the Nation State Bill.

raxxorraxor 2y ago

We do indeed disagree on premises. Arab nationalism was first founded in the 19th century and directed against Turks. Later it had other ambitions of course. And yes, the idea was the foundation of an ethnostate. Pretty much was you accuse Israel of being, while it simply is not true.

runarberg 2y ago
This narrative is ahistorical. The nationalism movements of the 19th century were all over the world, and against most empires, not just the Ottomans. So the new found Arab nationalism was new, just like Serbian or Greek nationalism was new, we also had a new found Irish nationalism and even Icelandic nationalism in the 19th century. Even zionism started as a 19th century ideology. Nor was the nationalism movements of the 19th century necessary a call for an ethnostate. It was first and foremost a call against empires and for own governments over own nation states. When there were calls for ethno-demographic policies to maintain a supremacy of one ethnicity over others, those were aside policies which differed among proponents of nationalism. These policies were equally—if not more—prominent among empires, than nation states. Even among zionists, only a portion of the original 19th century zionists actually wanted to displace Palestinians (or other indigenous populations of wherever they would establish the jewish state) upon migration. That is only a portion of zionists wanted an ethnostate. So no, nationalists of the 19th century—arabs, europeans, and others—did not necessarily want an ethnostate. EDIT: That all said, it is a bit odd to excuse a very real and existing ethnostate, by citing a theoretical ethnostate which never actually existed and at best had very limited support among the public and rulers at the time.
- raxxorraxor 2y ago
  It is neither a narrative nor ahistorical in contrast to your claims. A 10 minute walk through Israel would significantly deny your suggestion about it being an ethnostate. That isn't some misinformation on your part, it is just a malicious lie.
  - racional 2y ago
    A 10 minute walk through Israel ... "But the dominant group in Israel has internal diversity; therefore it can't be the dominant group" -- is that the counterargument, here?
    - raxxorraxor 2y ago
      No, that would be contradiction. Do you try to imply that a country having a "dominant group" is something that would form an ethnostate? Perhaps I lazily assumed the parent would refer to ethnicity when throwing the accusation of an ethnostate around? Which ethnicity would that refer to in your opinion? It should be possible to answer that question if the accusation is in any way substantial. Some ethnicities (and religions for that matter) might have serious problems in the wider region. Many do flee to Israel for safety in that case. That is the reality here and I would say that this fact is pretty hard to dispute without pointing fingers at less fortunate circumstances that maybe lead to less tolerance than there is in Israel.
      - racional 2y ago
        That a country having a "dominant group" is something that would form an ethnostate? Of course the fact of one group being dominant is not sufficient; there need to be deeply structural (legal) mechanisms in place for that group to maintain its dominance, which has certainly been the case with Israel since its very founding. You may consult the definitions in Wikipedia as to "ethnostate" and "ethnic group" for further detail if you wish. Which ethnicity would that refer to in your opinion? The one referred to in Sections 1, 5, 6 and 7 (and whose language is given preferential treatment in Section 4) of the Nation State Bill.