Anonymous #4 1d

And I would argue the primary problem with Zionism itself is with the designation of a state as *for* one particular ethnicity or religion. And frankly this is a problem with most forms of ethnonationalism, even ones I find myself partial to like the Irish.

1

Anonymous #4 1d

But I think what makes ethnonationalism particularly problematic in the case of Israel was the dynamic of new people moving in, with the goal of creating a majority over the already present inhabitants. There is a subtle difference in how the other ethnic groups will react to “we are in a state that is mostly another ethnicity” and “another ethnicity is moving here to make a state for themselves”

1

Anonymous #3 1d

Well, given voter turnout in Israel yesterday, it might come back

-2

Anonymous #4 1d

Before I engage further, you know there were Jewish people already there too, right?

8

Anonymous OP 1d

Correct. Palestine (as it was called after the Bar Kokhba Revolt) has had a notable Mizrahi and Sephardic population for millennia. But Palestinian Jews were a pretty small population relative to the quantity of Zionist settlers who arrived later. And even the pre-state Zionists of the first, second, and third Aliyahs were dwarfed by the quantity of people arriving during the holocaust and after the founding of the stage of Israel.

1

Anonymous #4 1d

Sometimes settler colonialism occurs in a form where you have an existing non-colonizer population of an ethnicity, whose numbers are then increased by a large number of co-ethnic colonizers. Good examples are Turks in Cyprus, English in Ireland, Italians in the Dodecanese and Dalmatia, and Germans in much of Eastern Europe.

1