'Israel is the nation-state of Jews alone': Netanyahu responds to TV star who said Arabs are equal citizens (Haaretz)
What's the thought process for this kind of thinking? Maybe my own world view is too condensed, but from where I sit there's a mountain of historical evidence that non-inclusiveness inevitably fails (often spectacularly, especially if you're vocal about how non-inclusive you are) and very little that shows it has real staying power.
This, I think, would have been a safer play pre-internet age when getting different worldviews was much more difficult. Currently we exist in a world where very rapidly global society seems to be growing more aware of ourselves as a single group of beings, rather than individual and separate cultures dotting a landscape.
What's everyone's take? Am I too optimistic?
It's worked out very well for Mecca, for instance.
I think people are quick to forget that the concept of Israel is not really supported by it's neighbors. The foundation of a jewish land in Palestine was "ordained" by Great Britain, but war immediately broke out between Arabs and jews. Every few decades since Israel was founded, they've warred with Lebanon or Egypt or Jordan, etc... Whatever your thoughts on Israel's "right to exist", specifically as a jewish country, it makes sense that their government would be wary of non-jews. They are far more inclusive than the Arab world is, in general, but not by "western standards". Western standards don't really take into account such strong sentiment about religion.
Think about what's happening at our own southern border (assuming American). It's not a religious conflict, it's just geographical. People that are not from the United States are not given protection under our laws, and in extreme circumstances, the malice or negligence of our government is causing suffering and death of non-Americans. For jews in Israel, many feel like jews around the world are "us" and that Arabs in Jerusalem are "them". There's a spectrum of course. I think younger people want to be more inclusive of non-jews, and to your point, maybe that's what is best for Israel in the long run. But to get in the mindset, think of Arabs in Israeli politics like Mexican green card holders in US politics.
Green card holders are not citizens, Arabs in Israel are. Trying to equate them feels like an underhanded attempt to make Israel's actions and policies sound OK.
And then there are the people like this that feel the need to accuse anyone discussing the issue of underhandedly supporting Israel.
The comment I replied to asked "What's the thought process for this kind of thinking?". Can we try to approach how the Israeli right views the issue, or is that an underhanded support of Israel?
Mostly religion, plus a little bit of history, and... religion.
Israel is the land that Yahweh gave to His chosen people. He didn't give it to the Arabs or anyone else; He gave it to the Jews. It's right there in the Torah, in Genesis:
Then, when the modern country of Israel was decreed by the United Nations in 1948, it was intended to be a gift to the Jews, as recognition of their suffering during the Nazi Holocaust.
But, primarily, it's religious: Israel belongs to the Jews because God gave it to them. It's their promised land, promised to them by God.
This sounds like the sort of ideology that is used to justify ethnic cleansings and other sorts of horrible stuff.
I'm sure if you ask the people in Myanmar, they will also say that somebody somewhere gave them the land and the Rohingya are invaders.
Ask the black South Africans, and they will say the same about the Afrikaans.
I think these ideological arguments are invalid and should not be accepted in this day and age.
Ps. This is not in response to your own beliefs or anything, it's in response to the belief that God gave the Jews the land of Israel.
The political claim, that the land was given to them as penance for their suffering in the Holocaust, I think is just insulting. What right did the colonial powers have to take land that was inhabited by a certain people and say that it belonged to another group of people... IMO, this argument has no leg to stand on.
And with all this in mind, what solution is there if the Israeli leader openly declares that Arabs cannot be equal citizens, while at the same time both sides continue to frustrate any attempt to achieve the two-state solution?
For me it seems that both sides really are at fault here. Whether they Are equally at fault, I am not informed or impartial enough to determine.
I agree with you wholeheartedly. As a former religious fanatic now turned agnostic, I cannot understand why people will take something like the Old Testament and believe that it is the word of a god when mortal men actually wrote it. Sure, I know that they were supposedly given instructions by this god, yet I just find the entire creation of the Bible, and all other religious works, the end result of man's searching for answers. No mythological being in the sky had anything to do with it and even if one did, why would this mean that a piece of land belongs to a certain group of people because of their 'special, chosen' status? Sorry, but not one religious group is any better than the rest. This is why the world is in such crappy shape today, people thinking that they are somehow better or more deserving than others due to religion, race, color, whatever.
Can any tell me if there are any reasons not to refer to Isreal as an ethno-state?
Ethnostate? I'm asking why Israel shouldn't be considered an apartheid state. The level of discrimination shown to Arabs (and in some cases, non - Asheknazi jews as well) is pretty apalling
Prior to their PM literally making the case for such a statement I think I could've located and provided some, but as it stands now I'm running on empty.