Yeah I can understand that philosophy. But I'm not saying whether or not there should be a homeland for Jews, I am simply pointing out the unavoidable choices when considering that policy, and potential conflicts inherent in it. What about the non-Jewish Israelis? What happens if political trends make Zionist Jews the minority? What happens if demographic trends give Israel a majority Arabic population? Surely you can see that the only way to avoid these possibilities is by implementing distinctly undemocratic and illiberal measures. The only way to control political opinions of a populace is by force and repression. The only way to control demographics is to control people's rights to reproduce or acquire citizenship. An ethnically based state will run into the same issues as a state that tried to be a haven for black people or Afrikaners i.e. the only way to maintain ethnic homogeneity is to stop ethnic mixing of any kind. And the only way to keep the people of this ethnicity "on course" is to eventually control their political views or force the monoethnic views upon them. The only way to combine protections for Jews without incurring contradictions of this kind is to have a state which protects liberties for everyone, not just those of one ethnic group. That is a much more durable solution, and hence more secure for the long-run safety of Jewish people or other ethnic minorities. For example in the USA demographic trends suggest a majority will be non-white later this century. Because the USA's notion of nationhood and citizenship is based around ideals and values rather than ethnicity, this will not be a problem. Whereas your conception of Israel specifically will run into this problem eventually. In any case, consider that a libertarian Arab is more likely to protect your rights than an authoritarian Jew. Finally, you should consider that even a Zionist Israel is no guarantee of security. There are no guarantees in this world except death. Jewish people are just as safe in places like the USA or UK as any other ethnic minority, and they are far less likely to die as a result of being successfully invaded or bombed by middle-eastern states or terrorist groups. If a new Hitler arises, and wins the resulting WWIII, do you really think Israel would be safe because it is a nation state? Having a nation only provides an illusion of safety, if there is one thing that history shows it's that nations rise and fall with the wind. Even the mighty Roman Empire collapsed eventually. A single nation, especially a tiny one surrounded by enemies, is no guarantee of safety at all. The only things that endure indefinitely are ideas and ideals, and there is thus far more long-term safety in the ideal of liberty and inalienable rights than in an ethnic homeland.
This is a myth. The biggest "diversity" is between people of the same cultural group. 1930s Germany had nazis on one side, communists on the other, and a bunch of others somewhere in the middle. The US had a civil war between white Americans, less than a century after being founded by groups of ethnically white anglo-saxon and European people fighting each other. In the long-run, people are separated by their ideals and outlook far more so than by superficial appearance or ancestry. And as I pointed out to Rearden, the only way you can prevent "diversity" is by becoming tyrannical. What if one of your ethnically pure citizen has mixed kids with someone from another race/culture/country? Do you keep the parents away from the children and each other by force? How is that compatible with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? There is no such thing as pure ethnicity anyway. In one sense we are all the same race, and in another we are all a mix. Just like with animals, evolutionary fitness is best served by inter-breeding, sticking to one's own kind weakens the stock.
I disagree with your first statement. There is immense difference in opinion between citizens in any state. For example some Japanese people are christian, some follow shinto religion, others are buddhist, others are atheist, others agnostic etc. What then is the religion of Japanese people? What is "their" culture, when you have drug-addicted rock stars, nazi right-wing fanatics, leftist anarchists, spiritual gurus, materialistic businessmen, reactionary conservatives all in the same country? The only cultural aspects in common are the ones like language. Your problem stems from this word "people". There is no homogenous mass of people who all think the same. All societies have individuals who have enormously diverse and differing opinions and ways of life. You cannot accommodate those differences and also control them. You either chose to control what people think, how they live, what they can do. Or you allow them to be free, and accept you can't control them in this way. It's an either/or choice. If a state supports freedom, it cannot control its people. If it wants to control its people, it can't support freedom. Simple as that. As for your last paragraph, I'm afraid you are confusing a prediction about reality with a value judgement. I am simply stating some unavoidable facts - it is not possible for a state to be both a free society and in control of the makeup and political beliefs of individuals in that society.
Some questions that non-palestinians and non-israelies ask: 1. If Israel really wanted peace, why they did not take the arab peace initiative which has been on the table for many years now and which is still on the table? 1967 borders for complete peace. 2. Pals seem to be the closet to the jewish people in religious, historical, and racial backgrounds. They also have historically been kind to and protective of the Jews for centuries. Therefore occupying them and not giving them their rights may not be in the interest of the jewish people, as scares can take time to heal. 3. If you read comments on the internet, one can see a trend to demonize palestinians particularly when there is a major incident. When there is a wrong done to palestinians, israelis should do the opposite and criticize their government actions. It can help palestinians distrust you less, and it is the right thing to do. It is time for Israelis and their supporters to face the mirror, and say enough is enough, and have the courage to sign peace and accept responsibility for the wrongs they have done.
A non-negotiable, take it or leave it ultimatum of indefensible borders (non-starter) and the right of return (non-starter) which does not even guarantee the cessation of terrorism (Hamas, IJ, Hezbollah etc don't support the proposal) is nothing more than a cheap publicity stunt which hardly fools anyone familiar with the situation in the Middle East.
I agree that ethnicity and race are not the only causes of friction. However, they are major cause of friction. If you doubt this, open your eyes. Half the places people are butchering each other around the world it is due to some form of ethnic conflict. Look at the peaceful, prosperous places and you find homogenous populations with a relatively high average intelligence. "diversity" will only harm such a population, much like adding high risk, lower quality people to a high quality low risk insurance pool. (it helps the newcomers but hurts the original participants). It would be nice if everyone could "all get along" but it never works in the long run.
The only way you can prevent diversity is by becoming tyrannical you sayâ¦?? I donât believe you⦠In reality it is racism that is natural. Diversity is the artificial construct. If diversity is so ânaturalâ then why does the media feel the need to constantly remind us that we need to âSay No to Racism!ââ¦??? Why do we have so many commercials trying to integrate blacks and whitesâ¦? It is a constant psychological bombardment, and if it stops then what happensâ¦? Riiighhht⦠We go back to not liking people who are of a different race. As for us being of the same race you can just forget it. That is just not true. I have serious doubts as to if we are even of the same species. The âOut of Africaâ theory has enough plot holes in it that you could drive a truck through. The inter-breeding statement is just nonsense⦠If youâre trying to suggest that people having sex within their own race is synonymous with incest then you're being completely ridiculous. Evolution doesnât favor âmixed-breedingâ anymore than it does âinter-breedingâ⦠Evolution favors traits that are best suited for survival. Why would anyone want to lower their chances for survival by breeding with unfit people...?
Funny how the UK, and other nations in Europe have to be "tyrannical" by outlawing speech and press which is "racist", and effectively try to have a "thought police" with matters regarding race and ethnicity in order to preserve and protect multiculturalism. If Europeans were free to persue their own destiny, Paris and Amsterdam wouldn't look like Karachi and Morroco right now.
When I was in France in the 80s their leaders were concerned about American Pop music polluting their culture. Did the French change and all of a sudden become pro immigration -- or have their leaders betrayed the peoples wishes?