Trump likely to acknowledge Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel

[Montmorency]

The idea is not to put hostile ethnicities far away from each other geographically, but to give each a patch of land where they can say "this is my land, that is your land", and then they leave it at that; as they seem largely capable of in the Balkans nowadays (Bosnia and Herzegovina doesn't follow this model very well, and seems the most troubled state in the region (apart from Kosovo, perhaps, but that entity presumably suffers significantly from limited, regional in particular, recognition)).

I was pointing out that, starting from a largely-developed world like the modern one, geographic distance must be a better assurance of security than statehood; most conflict is related to local-regional tensions. And then you realize that no matter how you reorganize the ethnic map (to the point of mixing and matching nations across continents, such as moving northern Nigerian tribes to Mongolia and Rohinggya to Belize), conflict will re-assert itself. Because conflict is not dependent on specific historical grievances but rather on local tensions, which conform to the geopolitical context.

In other words, closing one threat opens another.

Conceivably, yet countries like Bhutan, Nepal and Vietnam still exist today.

If you fragmented the states, Bhutan and Nepal could well still be clients of larger neighbors. On the other hand, Vietnam would look something like 1947 Israel to accommodate all its minority tribes. Indonesia and Malaysia would not exist at all.

That depends on how well the different countries cooperate on military defence. Again, note that such cooperation doesn't need to reduce the autonomy of the ethnic group; and even if it did, the remaining autonomy could still be magnitudes greater than would be the case within a larger state.

Such defensive alliances could also include relatively large countries that could benefit from being allied to smaller countries, like being allowed to have military bases there or gain access to resources etc. Again, this can happen without great loss of autonomy.

Is this in the sense that a hermit in the woods has autonomy? Small states bound by obligation, necessity, or threat to an alliance or to a large patron would not have retained this autonomy.

How did local ethnic Germans respond when Nazi Germany expanded its borders? I don't know if any of them contributed through sabotage or similar, but it seems very many or most of them were happy about it, which should make consolidation and further expansion much easier.

Then there's all the youth living in Europe that have been radicalised and travel abroad to join entities like IS; such individuals could conceivably be recruited for sabotage by different means under certain circumstances - and there are many of them.

I know that local Germans (particularly Nazi-friendly ones) were elevated to power, returned their imperial privileges, and organized into paramilitaries, following the occupations of Poland, Czechoslovakia, and so on. Prior to 1939 Nazi Germany was using their position to dominate the diasporas with funding and personnel, 'pre-purging' the opposition. During the invasions the Wehrmacht absorbed the borderlands almost immediately, so the main impact of the diaspora must have been during the occupation period, and toward overall manpower.

If a Muslim citizen harbors a generalized hatred for the home country, that amounts to a terroristic threat in the worst case - as we're already familiar with. It sounds like you're suggesting Muslim minorities could be a vector for European countries to sabotage each other, which seems like a wrong interpretation.

The idea is not to feed the immigrants to anyone, but to halt problem-causing immigration. Granting asylums to huge amounts of people from poorly developed countries is very costly for a welfare state that prides itself on 'high' ethical standards. These groups of people (the first generation, certainly) tend to end up highly over-represented in category of jobless people in countries where education tends to be important to get any job at all. Already, this is bad news for the state; we don't even have to look at radical nationalists.

These money have to come from somewhere, and the consequences of this re-balancing of state budgets of could again benefit radicals.

Then there is the security situation, of course. If many immigrant-heavy suburbs become increasingly dominated by criminal elements, that benefits radical nationalists, who can play the security card. The money required to 'pacify' such suburbs could again benefit radicals; once more, they have to come from somewhere. The rise in crime in specific suburbs could, by expanding the black market or by making it easier to bribe officials, potentially also benefit the radicals via any criminal and shady business they take part in or rely on.

First, it's important to establish that the refugee crisis affected Europe as it did because the EU failed to proactively manage the refugee population abroad before it spilled out. It's not surprising that such an influx strains the system and exposes or exacerbates pre-existing deficiencies and pressure points; if one has to calculate policies around potential dividends for the hard right, then the problem is already out of hand and bound to get worse before it gets better.

Therefore, the argument from not pissing off the fascists doesn't work by the analogy of closing the barn door after the cattle have left.

Beyond that you can debate both the moral and economic dimensions of domestic refugee policies, but we can set that issue aside for now. Most intend to return to their home countries, contingent upon local conditions in the coming years, so in your anxieties you share a stake in the quality and appropriateness of policies toward existing refugees.

If an entity is autonomous, it can make decisions and act independently of other entities. In, this case, there was no autonomy to begin with, because the other group also has a say; they must find out if they are big enough before they can do anything.

So as a matter of fact don't we see that an entity has more autonomy if it is a protected minority in a democracy, as opposed to nominally independent in an environment where "might makes right"?

When I speak of the autonomy of an ethnic group, I am thinking of the collective decisions that this group makes - either through consensus or what the view of the majority is. This is concrete.

So definitionally this is some democratic or similar process, right? An ethnic group has not necessarily more autonomy under a native despot than it does under a foreign one.

The reduction or loss in autonomy is then ability of other ethnic groups to alter the outcome of the collective decision on a national level (once again, this is concrete - either the other ethnic group voted in a way that changed the outcome, or it didn't).

A couple of things this assumes:

1. A binary outcome.
2. Discrete decision-making divided amongst ethnicities, then subject to potential veto by others.

But that's not how we live, is it? Outcomes are not binary, and possibilities are not gerrymandered by group identity. They are diffused throughout the body politic, which is divided by many different characteristics.

The only place where your schema applies is in constitutional matters such as secession. By analogy, if there are more men than women, this does not mean in itself that women have less autonomy than men, since men and women are not voting separately on men's issues or women's issues and then validating the other group's opinion. However, if men and women in combination were to vote to strip voting rights from some women (but not a corresponding subset of men), then women would be losing autonomy even as they participate in that loss.

Now, if we can assume that the collective decisions of an ethnic group are more likely to be ones that benefit or protect the ethnic group, then many specific shifts in the collective decisions at the national level could be harmful to that ethnic group. Note that even if the first assumption is correct, the opinion within the ethnic group could often still be split close to the middle.

If a population is 100% members of a single ethnic group, then their decisions are inherently collective for that group: there's no one else. But you must realize that in our world what this means is that decisions are pretty much never collectively ethnic decisions. It's not a meaningful description. Moreover, people have any number of distinguishing characteristics beyond ethnicity, and single ethnicities eventually cleave into multiple new ones.

This should not be viewed as an all-or-nothing proposition. Already, the world consists of very many approximate 'ethnostates'; to some extent, my argument is simply to not dilute the existing ones too much. The wisdom in creating new ethnostates has to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis (and relative to the current situation), not just generally.

The trend in Europe since WWII, and to some extent elsewhere in the world, is for the number of countries to go up (I don't know how the numbers would compare between e.g. 1800 and 2017), and most or all of these closely follow ethnic divisions to some degree, even if they aren't all ethnostates by any good approximation.

You can't get caught up in the numbers of states, since before the 20th century in the modern period most states in the world were European states and city states.Before the collapse of the USSR and Yugoslavia, agglomeration looked like the long-term global trend, because that's how (European) states became effective at fighting wars and provisioning for their citizens. Speaking of, the modern model seemed to be not of nation states (this is an accident of ancient European tribal demography, and for the most part non-existent outside of it), but of national states.

While countries like Sweden and Hungary are close to nation-states, major countries like France, England, Russia, Germany, and China stray from this ideal. These latter are, however, successful national states: centralized, autonomous and institutionally-differentiated sovereign organizations with coercive power and influence; distinct from households, kinship groups, churches, and businesses; have priority over all other organizations within a bounded territory.

In fact then, the largest and strongest states in Europe (and previously, the world) are not simply natural "ethnic groups" but agglomerations of numerous groups and tribes united under a negotiated, nationalized identity.


And then we recall one of the most important truths in politics: small states or groups do not have the power or resources to make decisions that benefit their members, regardless of these members' demographic makeup or divisions.

So, to me, what I am advocating seems to be happening on its own a significant extent, and borders are perhaps more stable now with regards to military might than they have ever been.

Obviously, you can expect there to be a lower limit. Creating a country of a few thousand might not be the best idea, and such groups might be better off trying to get some degree of autonomy within a larger state.

Then there is also ethnic groups that are closely related - the more closely related they are, the more natural closer union will be. For some ethnic groups, it might seem favourable to form a state based on a 'super-ethnicity', and view each other as distinct variants on a common theme. Ultimately, perception is key when it comes to ethnic boundaries.

When you say "stable", let's be more precise. The stability of borders is determined by the international consensus. The permeability or integrity of borders, that's another issue. In that sense you are more or less right, but at the same time there's no meaningful comparison to make, given the newness of the contemporary order.

Why is "super-ethnicity" such an important characteristic to you, that no other perception or external fact seems worth taking into account?

1. In the case of Jews pre-Israel, the case seems obvious. Scattered about different countries, they could not collectively defend themselves; divide and conquer, in other words.

Now if for some strange reason a Jewish state was somehow located in Europe and bordered Nazi Germany, could it have defended itself against Nazi Germany? It would have been really difficult, but at least the Jews would have been capable of putting up a collective fight. Since it seems improbable that Hitler's genocidal ideas should suddenly appear in his head and be kept secret from the rest of the world until he wanted to execute those ideas, this hypothetical Jewish state would have had time to fortify and militarise. Indeed, such a state could have prepared for such an event decades or centuries ahead if the ethnic group had experienced hatred for the duration that time. The government could also helped organise mass-evacuation once war seemed imminent - there would probably be some suitable destination.

The very post you quote also describe how it could be easier to intervene on behalf of an ethnicity if has its own state - do you dispute this? This is, of course, more for the contemporary era than pre-WWII.

2. This is based on an ideal - such institutions can collapse or be hijacked. I could just as well suggest that we should aim towards having the larger countries take the lead in the role of world police and step in when smaller states behave in a wrong fashion. To some extent, this is already happening.

Why should they need to collectively defend themselves as Jews? Why shouldn't they defend themselves within their countries or origin?

The 'opposing Jewish state' scenario gets increasingly silly without specifying its geography and neighbors at least, but it should be enough to point out that unless this Jewish state were nestled in the Alps it would have been overrun by the German military within days regardless of preparedness. The cost to the Germans, and the prospect of guerrilla war, are all well and good, but do not contribute to Jewish safety. Mass evacuation sounds nice, until you recall the world is highly parochial and stratified by ethnicity. Would the UK, Sweden, and Switzerland take in millions of refugees in this kind of world?

Without specific geographic and political circumstances to examine, I do not see why in general segregated states would make intervention easier. Indeed the infrastructure of large states, namely the absence of such, would tend to make it more difficult overall.

This ideal has proven to offer the surest protections for minorities in human history. There is plenty of room to expand it. To be sure, the state has the characteristics of the populace and vice-versa, so the citizens individually and collectively need to have solidarity indoctrinated in them through civil institutions; this will ensure both self-reinforcement of solidarity and the effectiveness of the state in mitigating harm.

I don't see what the argument here is. For what reasons do the average ethnic group not have their own state other than imperialism, either in a narrow or broad sense?

I'm not sure what you mean. My response was to your discussion of a potential dismemberment of the Soviet Union, and the fate of the Russian nation. The Soviet Union was a multi-ethnic empire dominated by the Russians, so if this empire were itself absorbed into other empires, then the Russians would lose their place at the top - in addition to being subject to the whims of another imperial ruling class.


Ultimately, I hope you recognize that the reasoning you present is almost indistinguishable from that used by all the various white nationalists...

[Viking]

I was pointing out that, starting from a largely-developed world like the modern one, geographic distance must be a better assurance of security than statehood; most conflict is related to local-regional tensions. And then you realize that no matter how you reorganize the ethnic map (to the point of mixing and matching nations across continents, such as moving northern Nigerian tribes to Mongolia and Rohinggya to Belize), conflict will re-assert itself. Because conflict is not dependent on specific historical grievances but rather on local tensions, which conform to the geopolitical context.

These conflicts currently tend to happen within countries, and to the extent they spill across borders, it is because the central authorities are unwilling or incapable of properly enforcing those borders. Part of the point of splitting up countries is to create new borders that are more easy to enforce, but also ones that central authorities really want to enforce.

Is this in the sense that a hermit in the woods has autonomy? Small states bound by obligation, necessity, or threat to an alliance or to a large patron would not have retained this autonomy.

Who are running Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, San Marino and Andorra? Aren't they managing their own internal affairs?

It sounds like you're suggesting Muslim minorities could be a vector for European countries to sabotage each other, which seems like a wrong interpretation.

I am not thinking about that, but about a hypothetical powerful muslim aggressor. Imagine that in Turkey, emboldened and aided by an Islamist resurgence, a theocratic strongman takes power. He sets in motion massive military build-up, and with a combination of military might and sympathetic coups, takes control of most of MENA. This doesn't have to be an entity relying heavily on Turkish nationalism; it could be declared a caliphate, and the official language could be Arabic. He (or his successors) eventually sets his sights on the decadent, Muslim-oppressing continent to the northwest: Europe.

In such a scenario, the agressor country is not merely a country, but also ideological and religious hub. This is similar to the Soviet Union and the role it played for communism.

First, it's important to establish that the refugee crisis affected Europe as it did because the EU failed to proactively manage the refugee population abroad before it spilled out. It's not surprising that such an influx strains the system and exposes or exacerbates pre-existing deficiencies and pressure points; if one has to calculate policies around potential dividends for the hard right, then the problem is already out of hand and bound to get worse before it gets better.

Therefore, the argument from not pissing off the fascists doesn't work by the analogy of closing the barn door after the cattle have left.

Beyond that you can debate both the moral and economic dimensions of domestic refugee policies, but we can set that issue aside for now. Most intend to return to their home countries, contingent upon local conditions in the coming years, so in your anxieties you share a stake in the quality and appropriateness of policies toward existing refugees.

The issues with immigration is older than the current 'refugee crisis'; second-generation immigrants play an important role in those. The relevant immigration has been going on for decades, and the ongoing immigration is going to exacerbate the issues caused by the previous immigration.

I seriously doubt that the net outcome is beneficial.

Many may return, but I expect that many will also stay.

I don't know how things are in Germany, but here labour migration is very extensive. You can even find people travelling all the way from the Phillipines to harvest strawberries (not to mention the strange case of Nepalese sherpas being hired to build mountain paths left and right). Contrast this with asylum migrants who do not come because they are needed, but because they have been given a favour (that they cannot expect to return).

So as a matter of fact don't we see that an entity has more autonomy if it is a protected minority in a democracy, as opposed to nominally independent in an environment where "might makes right"?

It cannot be taken for granted that might makes more right in a more fragmented world. For example, there could be a mutual understanding between bigger powers that "I don't expand, you don't expand", much like now.

So definitionally this is some democratic or similar process, right? An ethnic group has not necessarily more autonomy under a native despot than it does under a foreign one.

It is intended to be implicit in what I write that democracy is the ideal that is being strived for, with leading Western ethical ideals in some form accompanying it. Much of this debate wouldn't make that much sense otherwise.

A couple of things this assumes:

1. A binary outcome.
2. Discrete decision-making divided amongst ethnicities, then subject to potential veto by others.

But that's not how we live, is it? Outcomes are not binary, and possibilities are not gerrymandered by group identity. They are diffused throughout the body politic, which is divided by many different characteristics.

The only place where your schema applies is in constitutional matters such as secession. By analogy, if there are more men than women, this does not mean in itself that women have less autonomy than men, since men and women are not voting separately on men's issues or women's issues and then validating the other group's opinion. However, if men and women in combination were to vote to strip voting rights from some women (but not a corresponding subset of men), then women would be losing autonomy even as they participate in that loss.

Whether the variable under consideration is continuous or discrete, whether or not a change has occurred is binary. If the variable is continuous, then small changes may not matter much on their own - though they may accumulate.

If a population is 100% members of a single ethnic group, then their decisions are inherently collective for that group: there's no one else. But you must realize that in our world what this means is that decisions are pretty much never collectively ethnic decisions. It's not a meaningful description. Moreover, people have any number of distinguishing characteristics beyond ethnicity, and single ethnicities eventually cleave into multiple new ones.

This seems to be more about using a larger magnification than correctness of concept. If you go to a small enough scale, groups of people do not exist, and there would be no minorities to protect in the first place.

You can't get caught up in the numbers of states, since before the 20th century in the modern period most states in the world were European states and city states.Before the collapse of the USSR and Yugoslavia, agglomeration looked like the long-term global trend, because that's how (European) states became effective at fighting wars and provisioning for their citizens. Speaking of, the modern model seemed to be not of nation states (this is an accident of ancient European tribal demography, and for the most part non-existent outside of it), but of national states.

While countries like Sweden and Hungary are close to nation-states, major countries like France, England, Russia, Germany, and China stray from this ideal. These latter are, however, successful national states: centralized, autonomous and institutionally-differentiated sovereign organizations with coercive power and influence; distinct from households, kinship groups, churches, and businesses; have priority over all other organizations within a bounded territory.

In fact then, the largest and strongest states in Europe (and previously, the world) are not simply natural "ethnic groups" but agglomerations of numerous groups and tribes united under a negotiated, nationalized identity.


And then we recall one of the most important truths in politics: small states or groups do not have the power or resources to make decisions that benefit their members, regardless of these members' demographic makeup or divisions.

I was thinking particularly about Europe, where a lot of countries have come out of and into existence over the recent centuries.

As far as I am aware, France, Germany and China are ethnostates up to an approximation; it's just that the ethnicity in this case is a very diverse 'super-ethnicity' or a very wide ethnic continuum, or whatever you want to call it. Russia is numerically heavily dominated by ethnic Russians and the UK likewise by England and the English. Both countries are also creaking at the seams that are the ethnic borders and boundaries.

The way I see it, multiethnic states have a fundamental destabilising element that is more or less inherent in its multi-ethnicity. Groups of people want to rule themselves without outside interference, so minorities within a country may demand power in some form. The result of this may be parliaments or lesser entities that go on about wanting independence, like in Scotland and Catalonia, or that interfere with the affairs of the central government, including foreign policy, in some other way. If you do not grant the minorities power, you risk civil unrest. Either way, you have the unity of the country undermined.

When you say "stable", let's be more precise. The stability of borders is determined by the international consensus. The permeability or integrity of borders, that's another issue. In that sense you are more or less right, but at the same time there's no meaningful comparison to make, given the newness of the contemporary order.

The modern state is also fairly new, as is modern democracy - both have gone through dramatic changes during the centuries they have existed. They are also both likely to change significantly as technology and ideology change with time.

Why is "super-ethnicity" such an important characteristic to you, that no other perception or external fact seems worth taking into account?

Don't know what you are referring to here. There are always many things to take into account.

Why should they need to collectively defend themselves as Jews? Why shouldn't they defend themselves within their countries or origin?

If they are defending themselves together with an ethnicity that is equally likely to be the target for genocide, then the difference is smaller. On the other hand, if the other ethnicity could be treated well under the new rulers, surrender is of course a much more acceptable alternative for them than for the Jews.

When multiple groups are pulling in a similar direction, a smaller group might still have made more progress in the precise direction it wants to go if it were pulling alone.

The 'opposing Jewish state' scenario gets increasingly silly without specifying its geography and neighbors at least, but it should be enough to point out that unless this Jewish state were nestled in the Alps it would have been overrun by the German military within days regardless of preparedness. The cost to the Germans, and the prospect of guerrilla war, are all well and good, but do not contribute to Jewish safety. Mass evacuation sounds nice, until you recall the world is highly parochial and stratified by ethnicity. Would the UK, Sweden, and Switzerland take in millions of refugees in this kind of world?

Once we enter alternative history, there are so many things that can change. One of the advantages Nazi Germany had/got, was advanced technology. If a Jewish state had existed and was very paranoid, it may very well had been technologically advanced (that's not even thinking about nukes and Einstein).

One important aspect of my argument, is that a state is a powerful entity: it has tax income, it has diplomatic relations (more or less by definition), it has a police force and can have a military. So a Jewish state could negotiate on behalf of its refugees - this matters a lot. There is no guarantee that it would succeed, but it could have the ability to offer things in return, like gold or technology.

Another important and relevant aspect is also how this hypothetical European Jewish state came into being: if the Jews were native to Europe, why would there be so much more animosity towards Jews than e.g. the Basque? If they, as in reality, were not native to Europe and somehow had had a kingdom in the Middle East since ancient times, there probably wouldn't have been many Jews in Europe, and probably not that much animosity towards them there either.

Without specific geographic and political circumstances to examine, I do not see why in general segregated states would make intervention easier. Indeed the infrastructure of large states, namely the absence of such, would tend to make it more difficult overall.

Can you provide a probable example from the post-WWII world where an ethnic group would be easier to protect when its killer is a foreign state rather than its own state?

'm not sure what you mean. My response was to your discussion of a potential dismemberment of the Soviet Union, and the fate of the Russian nation. The Soviet Union was a multi-ethnic empire dominated by the Russians, so if this empire were itself absorbed into other empires, then the Russians would lose their place at the top - in addition to being subject to the whims of another imperial ruling class.

It seems to me that there were more Russians than Germans at the start of WWII, and an approximate Russian ethnostate could still be very resourceful and capable of putting up a decent defense against Nazi Germany. Other countries to the west could also help by forming a buffer instead of being territory that should be defended.

In sum, it is not simply the fact that the Russians were running an empire that would have made them safer. Indeed, if an ethnicity builds an empire, it was likely very strong to begin with.

Ultimately, I hope you recognize that the reasoning you present is almost indistinguishable from that used by all the various white nationalists...

Euro-American ethnonationalists face two issues:

1. They themselves represent a group of people that overran other groups of people already living there. Two wrongs don't make a right, but this weakens their argument.
2. Their country is already very diverse, so what are they going to do about that?

In Europe, the first point is reversed. It is the non-Europeans that are colonising Europe, and carving out their own spaces against the wishes of many of the natives.

The second point is increasingly becoming the case in several Western European countries. In terms of ethnic sovereignty; then, unless you somehow find deporting citizens ethical, assimilation may be the only realistic way to regain sovereignty lost this way, and may take a long, long time.

[Gilrandir]

As far as I am aware, France, Germany and China are ethnostates up to an approximation;

I wouldn't call it an ethnostate. As for Germany and France, it must have been true in the 1960-70s. Now with the influx of immigrants (Turkish in Germany and Arabic in France) your definition hardly holds.

It seems to me that there were more Russians than Germans at the start of WWII, and an approximate Russian ethnostate could still be very resourceful and capable of putting up a decent defense against Nazi Germany.

I hope you loosely call "Russia" what in fact was the USSR and I hope you realize that it consisted of more than just "Russians".

[Viking]

I wouldn't call it an ethnostate.

More than 90% of the population of China is Han Chinese; the largest ethnic group on this planet. The Chinese state generally seems like it can easily curb its enthusiasm when it comes to the ethnic minorities of the country, and probably would want them to give up their religions and identities.

As for Germany and France, it must have been true in the 1960-70s. Now with the influx of immigrants (Turkish in Germany and Arabic in France) your definition hardly holds.

German institutions seem still to be dominated by ethnic Germans, and likewise France with 'ethnic French'. Importantly, these states were built during times when this dominance was even greater and presumably thought of as natural.

I hope you loosely call "Russia" what in fact was the USSR and I hope you realize that it consisted of more than just "Russians".

There is no mention of Russia in the text you quote, but of a Russian 'ethnostate'; which per definition would be populated mostly by Russians.

[Gilrandir]

More than 90% of the population of China is Han Chinese; the largest ethnic group on this planet. The Chinese state generally seems like it can easily curb its enthusiasm when it comes to the ethnic minorities of the country, and probably would want them to give up their religions and identities.



German institutions seem still to be dominated by ethnic Germans, and likewise France with 'ethnic French'. Importantly, these states were built during times when this dominance was even greater and presumably thought of as natural.

So, which is your understanding of an ethnostate - the one that has 90% of some ethinicity in its population (according to the China approach) or the one whose institutions are dominated by one ethnicity (the France and Germany approach)?

[Viking]

So, which is your understanding of an ethnostate - the one that has 90% of some ethinicity in its population (according to the China approach) or the one whose institutions are dominated by one ethnicity (the France and Germany approach)?

I said they were ethnostates up to an approximation, which means that some things are missing. If the state is dominated by an ethnic group that already forms the majority, then that should make it work a bit more like an ethnostate compared to if it had any other representation in its institutions.

The context was also this:

These latter are, however, successful national states: centralized, autonomous and institutionally-differentiated sovereign organizations with coercive power and influence; distinct from households, kinship groups, churches, and businesses; have priority over all other organizations within a bounded territory.

for which differentiating between the pre- and post-immigration versions of the states, so to speak, seems very relevant. The states were built under conditions that were much more ethnostate-like.

[spmetla]

Montmorency:
In fact then, the largest and strongest states in Europe (and previously, the world) are not simply natural "ethnic groups" but agglomerations of numerous groups and tribes united under a negotiated, nationalized identity.

Did they become the largest and strongest because of having so many groups or is that a result of their being strong thereby allowing themselves to become large?

The UK conquered and married it's neighbors and anglicized the ruling class in those countries.
Wales has essentially been 'english' since the Tudors, Scotland is trying to secede, and most of Ireland has seceded.

France conquered all it's rival border kingdoms and destabilized it's neighbors.
Britanny hasn't tried for independence in centuries, the german and italian border provinces have been forcibly become more french to secure loyalty there and ensure there are no more foreign ethnic claims on Alsace-Lorraine or Savoy.

Spain secured all the Iberian states minus Portugal.
Now the Catalans are trying to secede. The Basques only stopped their campaign of pro-independence terrorism in the early 2000s.

Russia created an empire by settling the settling the steppe and conquering all it's neighbors.
It's conquered nations have repeatedly gained independence each time Russia was weak ie all the CIS states, the warsaw pact allies.

As discussed earlier in the thread right now the trend is toward further balkanization of every country not willing to exert force to maintain the status quo.

That is why China sees it's ethnic minority as a threat and has a policy of deliberately Han-izing all regions with significant minorities so that secession is never possible as it happened to the USSR.

Why should they need to collectively defend themselves as Jews? Why shouldn't they defend themselves within their countries or origin?

Because until the last 50 years Jews have been a almost universally oppressed minority within all its host societies. Tolerance has varied and increased greatly in the long term but anti-semitic pogroms against the jewish minority seem to occur any time the power structure of the host nation weakens enough so that they no longer are protected from the majority population by the State's security apparatus.
Generally they have been drafted and fought to defend their host countries but pre-WWII there was little guarantee of their security in return. No shortage of German-jews fought and died in WWI and the previous wars but that loyalty wasn't enough once the nazis stoked the anti-semitic sentiment after the crisis of the 20s.

Generally the jews would flee from an oppressive society to less oppressive ones but the problem has always been who was willing to accept large populations of them? When the oppression of Jews started in the 30s no Western nation stepped up and said to the Germans that they'd accept the now oppression jewish population. Those that saw the writing on the wall and could afford a move did so but millions could not do that.

In contrast look at post-colonial Africa. In most former colonial territories the white minority that used to rule has of course had it's security blanket removed. As such the subsequent 'white flight' occurred. Unlike the jews however these now 'oppressed' whites had host nations to flee to. Rhodesians were able to flee to South Africa or common wealth nations. The Portuguese ruling class when back to Portugal, the same with the French, Italians, and Belgians. That option never existed for the jews which until 1948 did not have a homeland to return to if oppressed abroad.

With that in mind was it right of the UK to prevent jewish migration to Palestine pre-independence?

1. Explained how any given "ethnicity" would be less exposed to violence or oppression ("safer") than they historically have been in practice.
2. Explained why we shouldn't seek the benefits of national unions or conglomerates, while improving protections for minorities? In which case, the first question becomes moot; whether or not a majority later becomes a minority, they are still secure by the strength of institutions

Since the 1948 expulsion of Jews throughout the middle east there haven't been any opportunities for the arab nations to oppress the Jews short of war and as such they are much safer and more prosperous now than as the oppressed minority diaspora beforehand.

The population exchange between Greece and Turkey in the 20s is another example that resulted in increased peace and security for both populations.


The national unions and conglomerates really only work when there is a common culture or heritage. Unfortunately the jews have always been too different from all their host populations to truly be protected in any nation outside the last 50 years of Israel and Western Nations.

That security by strength of institutions is only a guarantee of security if the upcoming majority shares those same values. If the isrealis were to become a minority within a single state of Palestine/Israel their security would be difficult to guarantee in the long run. In the near term while they hold many levers of power (especially in the security forces) such as the English/Afrikaner minority in South Africa. In the long term as they become a smaller and smaller minority what's to prevent their State guarantees from being revoked without penalty (think the settler whites in Zimbabwe under Mugabe)?

Have you any evidence that the Palestinians support such an cosmopolitan society? Looking throughout the middle east right now there's enough problems of getting Arabs of different Islamic sects to get along, and even less security for the non-Islamic minorities throughout the region (Egypts Copts for one).

Have the Kurds in Turkey greatly benefited from the greater security of the modern Turkish state? How about the Armenians?

How about the current oppression of the Rohingya? Why does this outright genocide against muslims draw less ire throughout the world than anything the Israelis do? Erdogan hasn't threatend Mynamar with war, nor has Pakistan, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia. This is surely a fine example that oppression of a minority in the current world is no guarantee that anyone will intervene to stop it.

The current world dynamics show pretty much that minorities have few if little rights outside of the 'Western World.' Outside of the West no one has shown that their state institutions will protect minorities so it's natural that the Nation-State is ideal method for providing that security.

[Montmorency]

Did they become the largest and strongest because of having so many groups or is that a result of their being strong thereby allowing themselves to become large?

They became large and strong because of geography and natural resources, allowing them to capitalize on the lack of higher-order natural resources through imperial and mercantile activities, develop technology, add value, rationalize authority, and build powerful militaries and bureaucracies. All of the largest early national states - Britain, France, Spain, Prussia - emerged not from ethnic unity but from ethnic union; whether you want to argue this has helped or hindered their development is a separate matter. That's not to say that all ethnic components of the new states were equal, far from it. Parts of England dominated Britain, Germanicized north-easterners dominated France, Castile-Aragon dominated Spain, and the nobles and traders of Brandenburg and Pomerania dominated Prussia. I'm not certain, but Sweden and the Netherlands are probably the only examples of successful early (i.e. Enlightenment era) mono-ethnic national states.

Because until the last 50 years Jews have been a almost universally oppressed minority within all its host societies. Tolerance has varied and increased greatly in the long term but anti-semitic pogroms against the jewish minority seem to occur any time the power structure of the host nation weakens enough so that they no longer are protected from the majority population by the State's security apparatus.

Since the 1948 expulsion of Jews throughout the middle east there haven't been any opportunities for the arab nations to oppress the Jews short of war and as such they are much safer and more prosperous now than as the oppressed minority diaspora beforehand.

Are Israeli Jews safer and more prosperous than contemporary American or European Jews?

Check your sig: "Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?"

The one thing that has contributed the most to the safety of minorities in human history has been the modern era's trends of liberalization and respect for human rights. In the 1920s, the European Jews were more secure than Jews as a people had ever been in history, and it was all due to the agitation (by Jews and Gentiles) in European governments for policy change to elevate Jews to the status of full citizenship. This had been an ongoing process since at least the 1700s throughout Western Europe, and things were looking bright.

In contrast look at post-colonial Africa. In most former colonial territories the white minority that used to rule has of course had it's security blanket removed. As such the subsequent 'white flight' occurred. Unlike the jews however these now 'oppressed' whites had host nations to flee to. Rhodesians were able to flee to South Africa or common wealth nations. The Portuguese ruling class when back to Portugal, the same with the French, Italians, and Belgians. That option never existed for the jews which until 1948 did not have a homeland to return to if oppressed abroad.

Alternately, the suggestion in this thread seems to be for colonization of white Africans to new African microstates. Viking's position is that having a sovereign state corresponding to a given ethnicity will, at least on average, increase the security of ethnic groups. The questions are if this is true, and if it is desirable. I think the answer on both counts is "no".

In the case of "colonists" far abroad, their security is little improved if their "home" state is unwilling or unable to take them in due to poverty or small size, is poorly ruled and treats them as second-class citizens, or is itself existentially threatened by its neighbors. Far more desirable is to build states that can properly administer all its population and pool the talents and efforts, rather than relying on the handy (but violent and unjust) excuse of 'send them out of the country, not our problem'.

You bring up Rohinggyas below, but the Burmese Buddhist argument is that Rohinggyas are actually illegal Bangladeshi immigrants (this is false, but leave it aside for a moment), and so by the reasoning presented in this thread the Burmese are acting in a normal and appropriate manner, to eject extra-ethnics and repatriate them to their "true" homes.

Or, if there were a distinct sliver of territory for Rohinggyas between a large Bangladesh and a large Burma, how would the Rohinggyas be more secure? They would depend on their neighbors for trade and resources, would have their politics determined between the two countries (or other more distant ones), could have civil wars fomented by proxy... and if Bangladesh and Burma agreed by pact to carve up the Rohinggya state and tyrannize, expel, or exterminate the residents, do we have reason to expect an international response greater than what we have seen so far?

The population exchange between Greece and Turkey in the 20s is another example that resulted in increased peace and security for both populations.

Not really. Both countries found new targets for violence - because, get this, but violent countries with violent leadership will never run short of enemies within and without.

The national unions and conglomerates really only work when there is a common culture or heritage.

Our present did not exist until recent centuries. The obvious answer is that new heritages will emerge.

That security by strength of institutions is only a guarantee of security if the upcoming majority shares those same values. If the isrealis were to become a minority within a single state of Palestine/Israel their security would be difficult to guarantee in the long run. In the near term while they hold many levers of power (especially in the security forces) such as the English/Afrikaner minority in South Africa. In the long term as they become a smaller and smaller minority what's to prevent their State guarantees from being revoked without penalty (think the settler whites in Zimbabwe under Mugabe)?

We've already discussed the problems with any two-state solution, so it's not too relevant. But in summary: both Palestinians and Jewish Israelis have become more radical and uncompromising, and geopolitically speaking two small neighbors in the Levant would be too insecure to exist in stability (and more so if the neighbors all collapsed into their constituents), so the only way to produce such an arrangement is with external violence, presumably by the UN or US.

The Israeli Jews are already set to become a minority, with the country eventually becoming composed primarily of tyrannized Arabs and Palestinians, and tyrannical ultra-Orthodox theocrats. The situation is dire regardless of how you want to carve up the region or the world.

Have the Kurds in Turkey greatly benefited from the greater security of the modern Turkish state? How about the Armenians?

Compared to the Ottoman days, they certainly have. The solution is not to disintegrate West Asia (which would also imply multiple Kurdish states), but to reform Turkey.

The current world dynamics show pretty much that minorities have few if little rights outside of the 'Western World.'

Then it should be transparent to you why I would be sceptical of ideology that undermines minority rights in the Western world. Aside from the wholesale destruction of America some seem to have in mind, I live in what is literally one of the most diverse cities on the planet, and I'm a Jew. Radical ethnocentrism is a direct threat to my personal safety, and a general threat to the survival of humanity on Earth in the sense that states would lack the capacity to address transnational issues.

Outside of the West no one has shown that their state institutions will protect minorities so it's natural that the Nation-State is ideal method for providing that security.

I still don't see why it's "natural"; empirically it just hasn't been the case that the "nation-state" per se provides security to nations, and I don't understand why that should change with a future reform.

[HopAlongBunny]

The U.S.A. is tired of "going it alone" on the Jerusalem decision.
If sweet words will not win over the nations of the world, well blackmail might work...

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-42431095

No doubt this will serve to restore America's international reputation

[spmetla]

Britain, France, Spain, Prussia - emerged not from ethnic unity but from ethnic union

Absolutely true but the ethnic union was of peoples that were linguistically, religiously and culturally similar. The more dissimilar ones never integrated unless it was forced through essentially genocide, outright or cultural (the inquisition, English civil war, etc...

Are Israeli Jews safer and more prosperous than contemporary American or European Jews?

Check your sig: "Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?"

The one thing that has contributed the most to the safety of minorities in human history has been the modern era's trends of liberalization and respect for human rights. In the 1920s, the European Jews were more secure than Jews as a people had ever been in history, and it was all due to the agitation (by Jews and Gentiles) in European governments for policy change to elevate Jews to the status of full citizenship. This had been an ongoing process since at least the 1700s throughout Western Europe, and things were looking bright.

First point is arguable. Under the current environment yes but there is always the danger of a return to ethnic nationalists that see the jews as a problem.
If the current trend of muslim migration into Europe continues we'll probably see more European jews bear the brunt for actions of Israel against Palestine.

For the second point, do you think either side can be made to be friends? The mutual distrust is too strong. One side wants to push the other in the see and the other sees only demographic genocide and security threats leading to a deadlock.

Alternately, the suggestion in this thread seems to be for colonization of white Africans to new African microstates. Viking's position is that having a sovereign state corresponding to a given ethnicity will, at least on average, increase the security of ethnic groups. The questions are if this is true, and if it is desirable. I think the answer on both counts is "no".

I fear you misunderstand me. I advocate nothing of the sort, I just want to point out what happens when the former rulers lose the grip on the state and security forces. The gap between Israel and the Arabs isn't much farther than it was/is between whites and blacks in Africa. Hence why Afrikaner South Africa and Israel together as the international outcasts worked so closely together.

You bring up Rohinggyas below, but the Burmese Buddhist argument is that Rohinggyas are actually illegal Bangladeshi immigrants (this is false, but leave it aside for a moment), and so by the reasoning presented in this thread the Burmese are acting in a normal and appropriate manner, to eject extra-ethnics and repatriate them to their "true" homes.

I brought them up because the Islamic world just like the West likes to pick and choose their enemies and outcry. The genocide against them is horrible and I'm absolutely against. However no one in the world is willing to intervene to save them. If they bordered a more prosperous Pakistan then I'm sure there would be intervention to help but because only impoverished Bangladesh is nearby (sort of).
Other point is that the Rohinggyas have a place to flee to, the Jews in the past did not.

The Israeli Jews are already set to become a minority, with the country eventually becoming composed primarily of tyrannized Arabs and Palestinians, and tyrannical ultra-Orthodox theocrats. The situation is dire regardless of how you want to carve up the region or the world.

It certainly is a dire situation. Sadly the Israelis just like all other 1st world nations can't reproduce to save themselves. To surrender them now to Palestine however is ridiculous.

Compared to the Ottoman days, they certainly have. The solution is not to disintegrate West Asia (which would also imply multiple Kurdish states), but to reform Turkey.

I agree on your solution but it points to the problem. Minorities are not protected in most of the world and the trend outside the west is to erode their safety. Trust in a State that does not trust you is not easy.

Then it should be transparent to you why I would be sceptical of ideology that undermines minority rights in the Western world. Aside from the wholesale destruction of America some seem to have in mind, I live in what is literally one of the most diverse cities on the planet, and I'm a Jew. Radical ethnocentrism is a direct threat to my personal safety, and a general threat to the survival of humanity on Earth in the sense that states would lack the capacity to address transnational issues.

Radical ethnocentrism is a threat to everyone. As a white guy in Hawaii I too fear the slowly more belligerent tones native hawaiians voice against us haoles. I'm also a 'pagan' which in large parts of our christian america means I'm a bad person. Thankfully Hawaii is one of the most diverse places in the United States in which there is not true ethnic majority. If some of the independence movement decide to use violence this state would rapidly spiral out its current peaceful balance.

I just want to point out that my strong position against open door migration or aid to refugees has nothing to do with my positions on protection of minorities.

To clarify my position: I'm am absolute advocate for the protection of minorities. If those minorities however have no intention of providing those same protections to you when they become the majority it makes little sense to surrender power to them. The examples of Zimbabwe versus South Africa are good examples. The closest example for the future of Israel is probably Lebanon which through demographics has slowly but surely changed and together with regional instability continues to decline in security and prosperity. There are now more Maronites overseas than in Lebanon.

Also, to clarify my position in relation to the OP. I don't mind us recognizing Jerusalem but wished that it had been stated the we see WEST Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel. The timing of it was absolute stupidity and seeing as it seems to have come with no benefits to the US except a thanks from Netanyahu makes me have more doubts about our greatest deal negotiator.

I still don't see why it's "natural"; empirically it just hasn't been the case that the "nation-state" per se provides security to nations, and I don't understand why that should change with a future reform.

Because not all nation-states have the same cultural background and will not necessarily seek the same reforms. When that nation-state has an ethnic basis the identity of that nationstate and thus is security can be threatened when that ethnic basis no longer exists. Nations such as the US which has no 'ethnicity' or the UK which is no longer seen as just english can accommodate demographic changes easier. As you've said it takes a long time but that's never a guarantee that the same state will remain in the future (Scotland, Catalonia, Flanders, South Tirol, the Sami).
For a state that's so young and founded on a ethnic/religious pedigree such as Israel to change the demographics rapidly is to destroy that same state. That's why in short I support the maintenance of Israel, the destruction or erosion of that state would return Jews to being stateless people with no place to flee to in the terrible eventuality that the currently liberal Western states become reactionary ethno-religious-nationalists again (it CAN happen again and it's dangerous not to guard against).

[Montmorency]

Viking and I are mostly speaking abstractly, but you seem to be more interested in certain present-day problems. We (at least I) weren't referring to any particular Israeli policy today; it's tangential and again I'll just refer to my judgement throughout the Backroom that Israel will increasingly become more unfriendly to all minorities because it's coming under the permanent sway of theo-fascists, who as far as "reproducing to save themselves" will become the dominant Jewish demographic in not too long. This will not, however, save them.

Anyway, my point is just, what's the point here after all? If someone is genuinely concerned with the security of people and peoples, advocating radical separatism and super-Balkanization is a counterproductive bet. Whether it's structural issues of government and institutions or cultural issues of values and norms, the result would be devastating.

(One potential consequence of Viking's argument, the angriest leftists would be right to argue that all Trump voters should be booted out of America for the safety and prosperity of the remainder - that's an ugly and unsustainable instinct. Or, the White Man should submit to peaceful(!) ethnic cleansing from the lands it has stolen from the indigenes - after all, every White should have a "home country" to return to.)

Absolutely true but the ethnic union was of peoples that were linguistically, religiously and culturally similar. The more dissimilar ones never integrated unless it was forced through essentially genocide, outright or cultural (the inquisition, English civil war, etc...

I'm not convinced that after a generation immigrants overall are more dissimilar to the autochthonous group than any random selection. The controversies raging today are narrower than that, about minority grievances real and imagined, competing myths, and broader political-philosophical debates we're having anyway.

[spmetla]

I'm not convinced that after a generation immigrants overall are more dissimilar to the autochthonous group than any random selection. The controversies raging today are narrower than that, about minority grievances real and imagined, competing myths, and broader political-philosophical debates we're having anyway.

That all depends on the immigrants. I've always thought the fear of the hispanics is way over blown. After two generations they're just slightly darker americans with a spanish last name. They are culturally similar and welcomed faster into American society than sadly the African-Americans which while conditions are improving are still the lowest echelon in many US states in economic terms.

Viking and I are mostly speaking abstractly, but you seem to be more interested in certain present-day problems. We (at least I) weren't referring to any particular Israeli policy today

I was speaking on specific and present day not abstract so I get your point now. Like you say though Israel as well as everywhere is going to the extremes. The danger of the religious right in any country to dictate policy is a road to theocracy or fascism.

The change in demographics always leads to problems. Up to WWII in the West it was about wealth and class. Now that being truly 'poor' is something that has been exported to foreign workers either in factories setup overseas or through immigrant labor. As the reactionary whites throughout the west are now realizing is that lack of wealth generally means higher birth rates and by having export those poverty level jobs to foreigners they will now have to deal with a group of people that aren't just a different social class but also different culturally and will essentially out breed the host nation.

Merkel is right when she says that Germany needs more laborers and immigrants can provide that, but instead of promoting a higher birth rate which would require promoting the role of women as mothers and that'd be sexist nowadays it's easier to import labor. The safeguard against communism was the import of labor that was not ever going to threaten the state. Now thanks to demographics they are a significant minority that can change the state or eventually create new ones (Kosovo).

There are no easy answers if there are answers at all.

[Gilrandir]

I said they were ethnostates up to an approximation, which means that some things are missing. If the state is dominated by an ethnic group that already forms the majority, then that should make it work a bit more like an ethnostate compared to if it had any other representation in its institutions.

So, a state may be an ethnostate (by the criterion of overwhelming ethnic majority) and still have instutionalized representation(s) of other ethnicities?

In most former colonial territories the white minority that used to rule has of course had it's security blanket removed. As such the subsequent 'white flight' occurred. Unlike the jews however these now 'oppressed' whites had host nations to flee to.

By the time they had to flee they had been living in Africa for some generations. Adopting this vantage point I don't believe white Rhodesians considered any other country except their own as a host nation.

The population exchange between Greece and Turkey in the 20s is another example that resulted in increased peace and security for both populations.

Something like that happened after WWII between the USSR and Poland (known as Operation Wisla https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Vistula). While on the ethnic scale you may be right in your claim, on the individual scale it was always a tragedy.

[Crandar]

Just a note, the bilateral population exchange between Turkey and Greece was based on religious, not ethnic or even linguistic grounds. The last two criteria would be practically impossible to apply. Anyway, spmetla is right, after that, tensions arose only where religious minorities continued to exist, even after the Lausanne Treaty.

[Viking]

Aside from the wholesale destruction of America some seem to have in mind, I live in what is literally one of the most diverse cities on the planet, and I'm a Jew. Radical ethnocentrism is a direct threat to my personal safety, and a general threat to the survival of humanity on Earth in the sense that states would lack the capacity to address transnational issues.

As can be seen in Europe, clearly, more diversity of the wrong kind can also severely deteriorate the security situation of a minority that hitherto had been living in relative peace.

This is also happening in countries that are among those taking 'human rights' the most seriously.

(One potential consequence of Viking's argument, the angriest leftists would be right to argue that all Trump voters should be booted out of America for the safety and prosperity of the remainder - that's an ugly and unsustainable instinct. Or, the White Man should submit to peaceful(!) ethnic cleansing from the lands it has stolen from the indigenes - after all, every White should have a "home country" to return to.)

I'd like to specify that my position does not include forcefully removing people from a country where they have citizenship (especially if they were born and lived all their lives there); and I am also sceptical to encourage such people to emigrate, especially those who belong to a group that has lived in a country for generations. Moving a majority doesn't seem like the most practical solution, either.

The Europeans out of America policy also implicitly relies on a couple of premises, like:

1. If you settle a place first, then it fundamentally belongs to you. You cannot lose it. This premise ultimately is also sympathetic in principle to anti-immigration attitudes, including against people who have lived in a country for generations.
2. That the relevant ancient populations did not massacre other tribes and took their lands or misbehaved in other ways that would 'disqualify' their claim on the land.

For the US in particular, think rather of the theoretical solution to carve the territory of the country into several pieces; where one piece could be for those of mainly European ancestry, one part for those of mainly African ancestry, one part for those of mainly ancient American ancestry, and maybe one part for those who believe in multiculturalism etc. (implicit: this must all happen voluntarily, at least for the vast majority)

Not a solution of much practical relevance, seemingly, but more in line with the principles that I operate with.

So, a state may be an ethnostate (by the criterion of overwhelming ethnic majority) and still have instutionalized representation(s) of other ethnicities?

An approximate ethnostate could have that, yes; as long as the minority does not hold too much power via the institutions.

[Montmorency]

Merkel is right when she says that Germany needs more laborers and immigrants can provide that, but instead of promoting a higher birth rate which would require promoting the role of women as mothers and that'd be sexist nowadays it's easier to import labor. The safeguard against communism was the import of labor that was not ever going to threaten the state. Now thanks to demographics they are a significant minority that can change the state or eventually create new ones (Kosovo).

One of the bigger pieces in falling birth rates in rich countries seems to be pessimism about the future and financial and social insecurity among people of childbearing age. Addressing that almost certainly means socialism, one funny argument against which is that a demographic truly secure and comfortable in its lifestyle, including future old age, will further disuse their gonads in favor of enjoying all the other aspects of life. If that's so, well - so be it? Miscegenation, as always, is a pretty good bet in that scenario. (Full disclosure: I don't plan on having children under any circumstances.)

As can be seen in Europe, clearly, more diversity of the wrong kind can also severely deteriorate the security situation of a minority that hitherto had been living in relative peace.

This is also happening in countries that are among those taking 'human rights' the most seriously.

As your articles point out, political antisemitism has crept up throughout European countries, classes, and movements, with and without Muslim immigration. Diversity of the wrong kind indeed.

The Europeans out of America policy also implicitly relies on a couple of premises, like:

There are many things wrong with notions of unlimited "native" sovereignty over the American continent(s).

(implicit: this must all happen voluntarily, at least for the vast majority)

But if you are someone who believes that separatism contributes to security, then you probably see many of the (past) population transfers along these lines as having been forced, involving great violence and anguish. Why shouldn't you believe that internment or expulsion be pre-emptive and forceful for maximum utility - and let posterity sort out the rest?


Anyway, UN non-binding resolution condemning American unilateralism and browbeating. Countries standing with the United States:

Israel, Guatemala, Honduras, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau and Togo.

It really was a special kind of stupid for the Trump admin and Ambassador Nikki Haley to directly threaten and demean dissenting countries and the UN as an institution.

[Devastatin Dave]

Time for the collection of diplomatic leaches that infest the UN to find another host country. Perhaps there is some beautiful real estate on the West bank they can get for cheap....

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Time for the collection of diplomatic leaches that infest the UN to find another host country. Perhaps there is some beautiful real estate on the West bank they can get for cheap....

It should always have been located in the only perpetual non-member.

[Kralizec]

Time for the collection of diplomatic leaches that infest the UN to find another host country. Perhaps there is some beautiful real estate on the West bank they can get for cheap....

And give their jobs back to Americans!

[Seamus Fermanagh]

And give their jobs back to Americans!

'Murricans, thank you very much.

And exporting those jobs will MORE than be compensated for by getting back a part of Manhattan not currently put to a useful purpose.

[Viking]

As your articles point out, political antisemitism has crept up throughout European countries, classes, and movements, with and without Muslim immigration. Diversity of the wrong kind indeed.

There's a quote in your article that sums up my point nicely:

“We are a microcosm of the Middle East,” said Philip Carmel, European policy director for the European Jewish Congress. “The Middle East is being imported into Europe.”

and most of the rest article further underscores it: the increase in anti-Jewish sentiment and actions comes mainly from increased migration from Muslim countries.

There are attempts to also blame native Europeans for this increase, but the offered evidence seems limited to this:

In Hungary, the rise of the far-right Jobbik party has brought concerns that anti-Semitic views are gaining mainstream traction.

In Italy, extreme right-wing activists were blamed for a flurry of anti-Jewish graffiti, including Nazi swastikas, on buildings in various cities. In Rome, fliers calling for a boycott of at least 40 Jewish-owned stores appeared last month with the signature of the far-right group Vita Est Militia. Italian investigators were also looking into whether such far-right parties were building alliances with extremist left-wing groups.

plus maybe a single workplace anecdote. So, primarily the former Eastern Bloc country Hungary (concerns, nothing concrete) and anti-Jewish grafitti and fliers encouraging boycott of the state of Israel in Italy. Now contrast that with murders and firebombings (+ probably a lot of grafitti and fliers).

In this country, the neo-Nazis are currently marching under the parole "crush the gay lobby", and I don't think they are much stronger today than they have been in the last decades. The rightwing populist party currently in government clearly states its support for the state of Israel.

But if you are someone who believes that separatism contributes to security, then you probably see many of the (past) population transfers along these lines as having been forced, involving great violence and anguish. Why shouldn't you believe that internment or expulsion be pre-emptive and forceful for maximum utility - and let posterity sort out the rest?

Because there are other things to take into account as well, one would think.

[Gilrandir]

An approximate ethnostate could have that, yes; as long as the minority does not hold too much power via the institutions.

What is this threshold between "not too much power" and "too much power"?

[Xiahou]

Time for the collection of diplomatic leaches that infest the UN to find another host country. Perhaps there is some beautiful real estate on the West bank they can get for cheap....

Jake Tapper actually summed up my thoughts on the UN General Assembly vote condemning the US for recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capitol....

[Fragony]

Ummahic Nations really

[Sarmatian]

I love the spin.

[Shaka_Khan]

A lot of the countries that didn't support Trump's stance are different from Venezuela. Take Canada for example. Also, some of the Americans should stop assuming that they give money to every other country in the world.

[Husar]

Here's a list that shows how the countries voted, seemed harder to find than it should be.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/1...180116873.html

[Shaka_Khan]

[Kralizec]

Here's a list that shows how the countries voted, seemed harder to find than it should be.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/1...180116873.html

Interesting, even the UK voted for the resolution. I was expecting them to abstain. It also seems that only a handful of fairly obscure countries voted with Israel and the USA, and as far as I know none of them are allies to either.

Naturally since there are some basket cases and undemocratic governments in the bloc that voted for the resolution we can just focus on those, and not have to wonder wether the Jerusalem decision was a bad idea.

[Fragony]

Of course it was a bad idea, but bad ideas can be realky good ones, bad ideas can make things much clearer.The UN what to say what to say, give them the nobel-price for peace and something else that has lost all credibility for the cheering of the cheering-monkeys