Trump likely to acknowledge Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel

[Pannonian]

I'm not sure it's a useful distinction where the whole region, including Israel, is liable to regress in the coming years.

If Israel is a middle eastern country, it's a bit unfair to expect that much more of them when the whole region is far worse than them. I used to think of them as a western country and was outraged by their human rights abuses. Then I learned to think of them as a middle eastern country, and I throw my hands up at the barbarism of the whole region, and bad as Israel are, every other country there, especially the ones hostile to them, is far worse. I'd like my country to have nothing to do with them, and if that's how it is, it's their own business how they conduct their domestic affairs.

[Fragony]

One could argue that the latter is a luxury in a middle eastern context. The question is, do we see Israel as a middle eastern country, in which case they are by far the best of the bunch? Or are they a western country, in which case their human rights abuses are a disgrace?

Either way, the argument Frag pushes, that Palestinians do not exist, is as bad as any other deletions from history. Israel's continued existence does not depend on the erasure of Palestinians from existence. There are any number of terms for this practice, none of them reputable.

Not pushing anything, just saying as it is, not my little children, not my pets

Anyways he did it, really unnecesary trouble. Who wants to work in that embassy these guys have their period all year but why make them extra-angry with what will be seen as a declaration of war. On the other hand, they are like feminists they are angry no matter what you do so why care

[Viking]

Israel exists, but Jews no more "deserve" a home state than Kurds or Tibetans or Tatars, Bretons or Catalans or Saami, or anyone else.

No ethnic group "deserves" their 'own state' (in the sense that they form the vast majority of the population), but it seems to me that having such a state greatly increases the security of an ethnic group that possesses one. If the relevant ethnostates (or whatever we want to call them) had been in place prior to the Holocaust or the the IS targeting of the Yezidis, both events may have had their severity lessened considerably or might even have largely been avoided.

Borders are not, and certainly did not use to be, sacred, but they are easier to maintain and defend, and they in practice provide a metaphorical line in the sand: cross this line with your weapons and you risk full-scale war, both with the country in question and its protectors and allies.

This is also another reason why I find the current radical Western European immigration policies atrocious: if they go on for long enough, they risk to seriously undermine the security and sovereignty of resident ethnicities.

It is also important to note that, already, such (more or less) ethnicity-based policies of ethnic sovereignty exist, including in Europe: the Catalans have their own parliament within Spain, the Scottish have their own parliament within the UK, the Sami have their own parliaments within Norway, Sweden and Finland, and so on. It seems to me that it's only once an ethnic group forms a clear majority within a state that concepts of ethnic sovereignty become really controversial.

[Fragony]

It's pretty straightforward what the EU is doing, googling Karlegi (Merkel won the Karlegi-price, yes that exists, it has as much status as the Nobel-price but you have never heard of it) will do. It's not a reckless plan at all it's policy, destroying ethnicities is the whole point of EU-policy. The idea behind it isn't even dumb if you consider nationalism a bad thing, but I don't. It also isn't evil. it's meant for peace, who hates peace. It's also incredibly dangerous. This school of thought is very real, a pillar of the ideological part of the EU-project if you will, feel free to look it up.

[Gilrandir]

I'd like my country to have nothing to do with them, and if that's how it is, it's their own business how they conduct their domestic affairs.

In the case of Israel, one never knows where their domestic affairs end and the international affairs start.

[Pannonian]

In the case of Israel, one never knows where their domestic affairs end and the international affairs start.

If Israel upsets neighbouring countries, do these other countries have relations with us that we need to observe? If not, then whatever the blurring of distinctions, it still doesn't concern us.

[Montmorency]

No ethnic group "deserves" their 'own state' (in the sense that they form the vast majority of the population), but it seems to me that having such a state greatly increases the security of an ethnic group that possesses one. If the relevant ethnostates (or whatever we want to call them) had been in place prior to the Holocaust or the the IS targeting of the Yezidis, both events may have had their severity lessened considerably or might even have largely been avoided.

Borders are not, and certainly did not use to be, sacred, but they are easier to maintain and defend, and they in practice provide a metaphorical line in the sand: cross this line with your weapons and you risk full-scale war, both with the country in question and its protectors and allies.

This is also another reason why I find the current radical Western European immigration policies atrocious: if they go on for long enough, they risk to seriously undermine the security and sovereignty of resident ethnicities.

It is also important to note that, already, such (more or less) ethnicity-based policies of ethnic sovereignty exist, including in Europe: the Catalans have their own parliament within Spain, the Scottish have their own parliament within the UK, the Sami have their own parliaments within Norway, Sweden and Finland, and so on. It seems to me that it's only once an ethnic group forms a clear majority within a state that concepts of ethnic sovereignty become really controversial.

What a silly post.

What is your evidence that an ethno-state "increases the security of an ethnic group that possesses one"? Post-war Europe?

Obviously if there were no Jews in Europe in the 1930s, Hitler could not have killed them. That's not an argument for colonizing Jews (which Hitler endorsed in the '30s). If you don't have a minority to persecute, you can always manufacture one.

A thousand micro-states drawn on ethnic lines would not by virtue of borders offer security, because these would not have the strength to defend them, our transnational institutions would not exist, and most of these states would be gobbled up into the empires of the largest nations (or most powerful warlords) - as was standard practice in the pre-modern times.

Nations are not eternal, for immigration to undermine some static measure of security or sovereignty. Wars between states are not driven by "third-party" immigration. Unless you think fascists take over - but that's a problem with fascists, not with immigrants.

Ethnic majorities in non-imperial context almost by definition have the majority of institutional power and resources, but devolution has been and clearly still is a controversial subject. Nevertheless devolving powers to minorities does not reduce the sovereignty of majorities, unless by sovereignty you mean domination. Which would have to bolster the arguments for transferring some power to minorities. Your position seems very different, therefore, from one who believes that nations should submit to centralized political unions because of mutual protections and benefits...

[Beskar]

Most of the ethnic states are more a driven need for local representation. It is mostly that a group of people sharing some values outside of the reprieved others not being respected and infringed upon. Whilst it might sound like opposites, the most workable solution is devolution to local governance with centralisation of essentially relationships. Europe Union works well in the individual interests of nations are made into collective interests, which are stronger and more powerful. Between the countries, there are many shared interests and policies. Because Fragony is Dutch, it doesn't mean he is incapable of the same rational thoughts and desires as someone from England, or Romania, or elsewhere.

In relation to Israel, the most fundamental issue is that is a Jewish state, as such, sets forth policy favourable to those identifying as Jewish over people within the population who identify as Muslim. The area has become that poisoned that I don't believe a two-state solution similar to Belgium, with Jerusalem acting as 'Brussels' would work at this point. It is more than simply two nations fighting over a space of land, it is essentially two cultures fighting for dominance. Thing is, the polarisation has come to a point where these two sides see themselves as opposites, despite the reality they are not. They are both two groups of people who want a bright future, who want their children to grow up and be safe, they want to led fulfilling lives. There would need to be a reset, a concrete effort to dispel us and them attitudes if there is going to be true peace in the area. Unfortunately, this is most likely so improbable, the alternative would most likely be domination of one side, with some kind of compensation for the losing side, and hope time and integration elsewhere heals the scars enough the issue being tolerable enough for those involved.

[Pannonian]

Most of the ethnic states are more a driven need for local representation. It is mostly that a group of people sharing some values outside of the reprieved others not being respected and infringed upon. Whilst it might sound like opposites, the most workable solution is devolution to local governance with centralisation of essentially relationships. Europe Union works well in the individual interests of nations are made into collective interests, which are stronger and more powerful. Between the countries, there are many shared interests and policies. Because Fragony is Dutch, it doesn't mean he is incapable of the same rational thoughts and desires as someone from England, or Romania, or elsewhere.

In relation to Israel, the most fundamental issue is that is a Jewish state, as such, sets forth policy favourable to those identifying as Jewish over people within the population who identify as Muslim. The area has become that poisoned that I don't believe a two-state solution similar to Belgium, with Jerusalem acting as 'Brussels' would work at this point. It is more than simply two nations fighting over a space of land, it is essentially two cultures fighting for dominance. Thing is, the polarisation has come to a point where these two sides see themselves as opposites, despite the reality they are not. They are both two groups of people who want a bright future, who want their children to grow up and be safe, they want to led fulfilling lives. There would need to be a reset, a concrete effort to dispel us and them attitudes if there is going to be true peace in the area. Unfortunately, this is most likely so improbable, the alternative would most likely be domination of one side, with some kind of compensation for the losing side, and hope time and integration elsewhere heals the scars enough the issue being tolerable enough for those involved.

Hence my question of whether Israel is to be regarded as a western or a middle eastern country. In a Muslim country, which is what middle eastern countries are that aren't Israel, this kind of discrimination against non-Muslims is standard, and takes an even more backward form as lynchings for blasphemy demonstrate. When set against that standard, Israel, awful though they may be by western standards, is positively liberal by Muslim standards.

[Montmorency]

Hence my question of whether Israel is to be regarded as a western or a middle eastern country. In a Muslim country, which is what middle eastern countries are that aren't Israel, this kind of discrimination against non-Muslims is standard, and takes an even more backward form as lynchings for blasphemy demonstrate. When set against that standard, Israel, awful though they may be by western standards, is positively liberal by Muslim standards.

Maybe there's another way to look at it: if Israel now is Western-ish, and it is in the process of becoming more Middle Eastern-ish, do Western countries have either a duty or a self-interest in trying to prevent Israel from becoming more Middle Eastern-ish?

[Pannonian]

Maybe there's another way to look at it: if Israel now is Western-ish, and it is in the process of becoming more Middle Eastern-ish, do Western countries have either a duty or a self-interest in trying to prevent Israel from becoming more Middle Eastern-ish?

What right do we have to tell them what to be? We don't tell the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to drop the Islamic bit in their being, and they actually have a blasphemy law which people have been condemned to death for.

Also, if we want to talk about self-interest, maybe we should start with Assad. Saddam should have been the lesson, but we stupidly repeated the mistake with Qaddafi, and are now determined to repeat it again with Assad. If a brutal secular dictator is in charge of a Muslim country, thank our lucky stars and do not interfere.

[Fragony]

As if it's the west intention to actually help, mess after mess, we should not meddle only innocent people get harmed if you do. People are perfectly ok with a dictator if he keeps things uncomplicated.

OT, things are really quiet, I expected massive outrage from islamphile leftists and muslims. Guess I was wrong. I'm almost disapointed that nobody is picking up the glove as everybody knows it's a provocation and a stupid one

[Gilrandir]

If Israel upsets neighbouring countries, do these other countries have relations with us that we need to observe?

In case of Israel, it mostly "upsets" Palestinians and it is difficult to say whether they may be considered "neighbors" or "indigenes". Hence the blurred definition of foreign/domestic affairs.

[rory_20_uk]

Maybe there's another way to look at it: if Israel now is Western-ish, and it is in the process of becoming more Middle Eastern-ish, do Western countries have either a duty or a self-interest in trying to prevent Israel from becoming more Middle Eastern-ish?

No. There would be avast investment to try to make them anything - and frankly they follow their own playbook.

The West should have relations with all the countries in the area - why not? They mainly hate each other more than us.

[Viking]

What is your evidence that an ethno-state "increases the security of an ethnic group that possesses one"? Post-war Europe?

Superficially, it makes perfect sense that it would; so I would just as well look for things that would go against it, as I'd expect it to be true.

Obviously if there were no Jews in Europe in the 1930s, Hitler could not have killed them. That's not an argument for colonizing Jews (which Hitler endorsed in the '30s). If you don't have a minority to persecute, you can always manufacture one.

If the same or similar amount Jews were present in Europe in the early 1900s, and we also had a state of Israel created at some unspecified point earlier, then:

1. Hitler might forcefully deport all Jews to Israel
2. a large amount of Jews could migrate voluntarily in response to the deteriorating situation in Germany, making 1. a more likely outcome for the smaller group that still remains
3. the state of Israel might offer to resettle all German Jews, including footing the bill for the whole thing. For those that refuse to resettle, 1. can still be a later outcome (rather than death)
4. the state of Israel can alter the outcome in yet different ways: helping Jews escape occupied areas in different ways, like sabotage and other clandestine operations, maybe even strategic bombing raids once the war has started if they can get to any friendly airfields close enough; they may also use diplomacy to make the allies put more effort into stopping or reducing the extent of the Holocaust, both before and during the war, and so on

A thousand micro-states drawn on ethnic lines would not by virtue of borders offer security, because these would not have the strength to defend them, our transnational institutions would not exist, and most of these states would be gobbled up into the empires of the largest nations (or most powerful warlords) - as was standard practice in the pre-modern times.

Many or all of the larger nations would lose a lot of their territory and population if we started carving them up, and would be weakened.

Furthermore, small nations could form defensive pacts à la NATO. If one country buys one fighter jet, then 500 small nations is 500 fighter jets. This organisation leaves not a good fundament for independently projecting power (a single fighter jet makes no invasion), but for the given ethnic group, that's probably not worse on average compared to if they had formed a small part of a much larger country (and smaller groups of small individual countries can still agree to project power, obviously).

Nations are not eternal, for immigration to undermine some static measure of security or sovereignty. Wars between states are not driven by "third-party" immigration.

In the most basic forms, this is straight forward. If we have two approximate ethnostates A and B, and a huge chunk of people migrate from B to A to form 10% of the population there, then if B later (e.g 10 or 100 years) declares war on A, those 10% may leave A in a weaker position than A would have been without them, because of significant sympathies for B from these 10%. The result may be significant unrest (potentially even civil revolt in certain areas, if the ethnicities live largely separated), increased amounts of sabotage, or, even without much sympathy at all from the 10% towards B: severe trust issues among soldiers (potentially conscripts) and civilians.

You could also replace B with the approximate ethnostate C as the agressor, where C has the same religion as B, or some other connection, and thus can make a lot of the 10% feel sympathetic towards C. You can furthermore "replace sympathy to B" with "apathy", in either scenario, as well as in scenarios where ethnostate D has a beef with the ethnicity of A, but not B.

Note also with the loss of autonomy trough democracy that the majority will have, in the last paragraph; which could impact the security of the original population negatively, even if it remains the majority.

Unless you think fascists take over - but that's a problem with fascists, not with immigrants.

Yet if the indirect problem is easier to tackle than the direct one, tackling the indirect one can be the way to go. To say that something is "not really the problem" is only relevant for the solution as long as solving the "real problem" is feasible and desirable (given potential downsides).

Ethnic majorities in non-imperial context almost by definition have the majority of institutional power and resources, but devolution has been and clearly still is a controversial subject. Nevertheless devolving powers to minorities does not reduce the sovereignty of majorities, unless by sovereignty you mean domination. Which would have to bolster the arguments for transferring some power to minorities. Your position seems very different, therefore, from one who believes that nations should submit to centralized political unions because of mutual protections and benefits...

If the immigration is large enough for long enough, the minorities will become the new majority. Long before that point, they will also have a large power potential in democracies: if 10% of the population was from a certain immigrant background and most of them voted in a distinct fashion, that can mean a lot influence in a democracy and reduce the autonomy, or whatever you want to call it, of the original population relative to that it would have had without the immigration.

[Husar]

Many or all of the larger nations would lose a lot of their territory and population if we started carving them up, and would be weakened.

Furthermore, small nations could form defensive pacts à la NATO. If one country buys one fighter jet, then 500 small nations is 500 fighter jets. This organisation leaves not a good fundament for independently projecting power (a single fighter jet makes no invasion), but for the given ethnic group, that's probably not worse on average compared to if they had formed a small part of a much larger country (and smaller groups of small individual countries can still agree to project power, obviously).

Except that this has historically hardly ever worked, or has it? The jews did have their ethnic state, until one empire after another conquered them. Their small neighbors weren't allies but enemies. With many small states it is not too hard to use divide and conquer tactics or just wait until they compete over money and naturally disintegrate, much like the EU almost did when money became a problem. Or just look at the Brexit over money, etc.

Or you'll just end up with one alliance of small states fighting and conquering another alliance of small states...

[Pannonian]

Except that this has historically hardly ever worked, or has it? The jews did have their ethnic state, until one empire after another conquered them. Their small neighbors weren't allies but enemies. With many small states it is not too hard to use divide and conquer tactics or just wait until they compete over money and naturally disintegrate, much like the EU almost did when money became a problem. Or just look at the Brexit over money, etc.

Or you'll just end up with one alliance of small states fighting and conquering another alliance of small states...

Looks back at the halcyon days of the Aetolian League and Achaean League...

[Viking]

Except that this has historically hardly ever worked, or has it? The jews did have their ethnic state, until one empire after another conquered them. Their small neighbors weren't allies but enemies. With many small states it is not too hard to use divide and conquer tactics or just wait until they compete over money and naturally disintegrate, much like the EU almost did when money became a problem. Or just look at the Brexit over money, etc.

Or you'll just end up with one alliance of small states fighting and conquering another alliance of small states...

The concept of military alliances has changed over time; for the present day, you have to think of present-day alliances, not real or theoretical ones for 2 000 years ago.

The EU is not a defensive alliance - it's currently more of an attempt at creating a federal republic if anything - and not quite comparable.

The idea is not that ethnostates magically make defensive alliances work without any difficulty, or that bigger countries cannot still swallow smaller ones; but that the average ethnic group could be safer (e.g. less likely to be massacred or cleansed in some other way) if they had their own state.

Ethnic groups could still get cleansed, but it would now happen to the population of Tinya rather than to the population in some province (or even part of a province) in Largea or Hugea. Because countries stand out more internationally in the contemporary world than provinces do, I think it would generally be more obvious to the world that it is about to happen or is currently going on. Just having a flag seems like a good PR move already.

And of course, it's easier to intervene when a small country asks for help than if there appears to be a dubious military operation going on internally in some country, but you cannot really tell because that state has enforced a media blackout in the area for a while. In this context, think also of international law (and politics and diplomacy) and the issue of invading a country versus deploying troops to a country that has asked for them.

[Fragony]

Cleansed isn't really the correct word, 'altered' would be more correct. It's basicly the same but slower

[Husar]

The idea is not that ethnostates magically make defensive alliances work without any difficulty, or that bigger countries cannot still swallow smaller ones; but that the average ethnic group could be safer (e.g. less likely to be massacred or cleansed in some other way) if they had their own state.

Ethnic groups could still get cleansed, but it would now happen to the population of Tinya rather than to the population in some province (or even part of a province) in Largea or Hugea. Because countries stand out more internationally in the contemporary world than provinces do, I think it would generally be more obvious to the world that it is about to happen or is currently going on. Just having a flag seems like a good PR move already.

So when Hitler attacked Russia for more Lebensraum and wanted to ethnically cleanse it of slavs, the slavs were safer as an ethnic group because they had their own state? And the USA joined in to help right away because it was all so obvious. And the obvious attacks on Belgium and the Netherlands made the Germans lose quickly as everyone came to aid them. Sounds like a flawless theory. Especially if the world had half a bazillion countries, they'd all stand out more than half a bazillion provinces.

And of course, it's easier to intervene when a small country asks for help than if there appears to be a dubious military operation going on internally in some country, but you cannot really tell because that state has enforced a media blackout in the area for a while. In this context, think also of international law (and politics and diplomacy) and the issue of invading a country versus deploying troops to a country that has asked for them.

Like the obvious military operations in Ukraine that made the world's militaries rush there to help?
Or the dubious goings on in a province in Eastern Spain that went completely under the radar?

[Viking]

So when Hitler attacked Russia for more Lebensraum and wanted to ethnically cleanse it of slavs, the slavs were safer as an ethnic group because they had their own state?

If the Soviet union were divided between Turkey, China and Japan, I think e.g. ethnic Russians would be less safe in this situation, yes. If Turkey lost control over Moscow and Saint Petersburg, they may have thought that "that's a shame, but at least we hold Volgograd and can form a new border there, leaving the rest to the Nazis". Hitler, having gained more Lebensraum, is happy to start the cleansing and otherwise refocus his military efforts to the western front.

And the USA joined in to help right away because it was all so obvious.

It was obvious, but you equally obviously have no guarantee that anyone will step in regardless of whether the cleansing happens within Germussia or Russia. Safer, not safe (don't be lazy).

Especially if the world had half a bazillion countries, they'd all stand out more than half a bazillion provinces.

How many states of Brazil can you (or the average European) name versus how many South American countries? About half of South America's population lives in Brazil, and the country covers almost half of the continent.

Like the obvious military operations in Ukraine that made the world's militaries rush there to help?
Or the dubious goings on in a province in Eastern Spain that went completely under the radar?

No cleansing of the majority population going on in either of those places. Krym seems to have Russians as the major ethnicity - same as the occupying country. If the endemic ethnicity - the Crimean Tatars - had had their own state there (i.e. they weren't a minority, like they are now), the Russian occupation would have looked much worse.

[CrossLOPER]

Cleansed isn't really the correct word, 'altered' would be more correct. It's basicly the same but slower

Ethnoforming?

[HopAlongBunny]

Well it's official.
Outside of the U.S.A. and Israel, the rest of the world is just mean when it comes to ethnic cleansing and territorial appropriation in the Middle East:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-42287429

Israel and Western nation, a Middle Eastern nation?
It is striving to be a North American nation, simply occupying a land void of habitation, culture or history

[Montmorency]

Well it's official.
Outside of the U.S.A. and Israel, the rest of the world is just mean when it comes to ethnic cleansing and territorial appropriation in the Middle East:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-42287429

Israel and Western nation, a Middle Eastern nation?
It is striving to be a North American nation, simply occupying a land void of habitation, culture or history

F***

HOLD IT

Now, I hope I am wrong about this, but

US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said it could take two years before the US embassy was relocated from Tel Aviv

The 1995 Jerusalem Embassy Act stipulates that

(b) Opening Determination.—
Not more than 50 percent of the funds appropriated to the Department of State for fiscal year 1999 for "Acquisition and Maintenance of Buildings Abroad" may be obligated until the Secretary of State determines and reports to Congress that the United States Embassy In Jerusalem has officially opened.

What this means in combination with the well-known Executive waiver is that the embassy must be moved before (that is, otherwise) the State Department funding sequestration takes effect, which would be the beginning of FY 2019, or October 1, 2018. Tillerson's timetable suggests two years of funding limitation.

Again, I hope that I am wrong about this - has the sequestration clause been waived somehow? - but intentional delay of implementation with the result that embassy/consulate spending will be cut across the board sounds like blatant subversion of the government.

[Montmorency]

Superficially, it makes perfect sense that it would; so I would just as well look for things that would go against it, as I'd expect it to be true.

But why do you believe so?

If the same or similar amount Jews were present in Europe in the early 1900s, and we also had a state of Israel created at some unspecified point earlier, then:

Hitler might forcefully deport all Jews to Israel
a large amount of Jews could migrate voluntarily in response to the deteriorating situation in Germany, making 1. a more likely outcome for the smaller group that still remains
the state of Israel might offer to resettle all German Jews, including footing the bill for the whole thing. For those that refuse to resettle, 1. can still be a later outcome (rather than death)
the state of Israel can alter the outcome in yet different ways: helping Jews escape occupied areas in different ways, like sabotage and other clandestine operations, maybe even strategic bombing raids once the war has started if they can get to any friendly airfields close enough; they may also use diplomacy to make the allies put more effort into stopping or reducing the extent of the Holocaust, both before and during the war, and so on

This depends on distance - if a Jewish state exists bordering Hitler's Germany, or Germany's neighbors, they would be quickly overrun. And if you have one place concentrating most of the Jews already, extermination becomes easier.

Superficially, what your idea advocates for is shuffling around mutually-hostile groups until they're sufficiently geographically distant from one another. This sounds familiar...

Many or all of the larger nations would lose a lot of their territory and population if we started carving them up, and would be weakened.

China would clearly dominate Asia east of India, which would itself be gravely weakened. Maybe Japan and China could carve up Southeast Asia and the Pacific among each other.

Furthermore, small nations could form defensive pacts à la NATO. If one country buys one fighter jet, then 500 small nations is 500 fighter jets. This organisation leaves not a good fundament for independently projecting power (a single fighter jet makes no invasion), but for the given ethnic group, that's probably not worse on average compared to if they had formed a small part of a much larger country (and smaller groups of small individual countries can still agree to project power, obviously).

Economies of scale suggest that a single force of 50 jets could overpower 500 individual air forces. Either a central power dominates, or the organization has no practical effect - and that's what the historical evidence shows.

In the most basic forms, this is straight forward. If we have two approximate ethnostates A and B, and a huge chunk of people migrate from B to A to form 10% of the population there, then if B later (e.g 10 or 100 years) declares war on A, those 10% may leave A in a weaker position than A would have been without them, because of significant sympathies for B from these 10%.

Or it may not. "5th columns" have largely been a myth, and invaders who hoped to rely on them have often ended with egg on their faces.

Note also with the loss of autonomy trough democracy that the majority will have, in the last paragraph; which could impact the security of the original population negatively, even if it remains the majority.

How would they lose democratic autonomy?

Yet if the indirect problem is easier to tackle than the direct one, tackling the indirect one can be the way to go.

But at this point, feeding immigrants to fascists would only serve to grow the fascists. Eventually they will grow big enough to eat you, and you will have no one left to feed to them.

Pragmatism aside, peacable immigrants may hold higher moral value than monstrous locals.

To say that something is "not really the problem" is only relevant for the solution as long as solving the "real problem" is feasible and desirable (given potential downsides).

If one perceives that immigration is both more problematic and more easily resolved as a problem than fascist resurgence, irreconcilable differences in values may be at play.

If the immigration is large enough for long enough, the minorities will become the new majority. Long before that point, they will also have a large power potential in democracies: if 10% of the population was from a certain immigrant background and most of them voted in a distinct fashion, that can mean a lot influence in a democracy and reduce the autonomy, or whatever you want to call it, of the original population relative to that it would have had without the immigration.

Again, how?

Imagine there are no immigrants. 50% of the population wants to declare the aspen the country's national tree, while the other 50% want to declare the oak their national tree. If, in a few years, 40% favor the aspen and 55% favor the oak, would you say that aspen-lovers have "lost autonomy"?

Autonomy is concrete, and not a mere function of this or that demographic. You have to point out specific policies or structures that increase or decrease it.

[Montmorency]

The concept of military alliances has changed over time; for the present day, you have to think of present-day alliances, not real or theoretical ones for 2 000 years ago.

The EU is not a defensive alliance - it's currently more of an attempt at creating a federal republic if anything - and not quite comparable.

The idea is not that ethnostates magically make defensive alliances work without any difficulty, or that bigger countries cannot still swallow smaller ones; but that the average ethnic group could be safer (e.g. less likely to be massacred or cleansed in some other way) if they had their own state.

Ethnic groups could still get cleansed, but it would now happen to the population of Tinya rather than to the population in some province (or even part of a province) in Largea or Hugea. Because countries stand out more internationally in the contemporary world than provinces do, I think it would generally be more obvious to the world that it is about to happen or is currently going on. Just having a flag seems like a good PR move already.

And of course, it's easier to intervene when a small country asks for help than if there appears to be a dubious military operation going on internally in some country, but you cannot really tell because that state has enforced a media blackout in the area for a while. In this context, think also of international law (and politics and diplomacy) and the issue of invading a country versus deploying troops to a country that has asked for them.

One problem is that you appeal to contemporary conditions, but then imagine a contemporary world that is basically an alien planet in which nothing of contemporary conditions need be expected to apply.

You have not done two things:

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.

If the Soviet union were divided between Turkey, China and Japan, I think e.g. ethnic Russians would be less safe in this situation, yes. If Turkey lost control over Moscow and Saint Petersburg, they may have thought that "that's a shame, but at least we hold Volgograd and can form a new border there, leaving the rest to the Nazis". Hitler, having gained more Lebensraum, is happy to start the cleansing and otherwise refocus his military efforts to the western front.

But here's the mistake,and I warned against it in my first reply: if an imperial ruling class at some point becomes subject to another imperial ruling class, of course they would be less safe. They're no longer the overlords! That's an argument against empire/colonialism, and nothing more.

[Fragony]

This is going to be fun, Turkey and France have their perioids. The Erdo-Khan has Gilles de la Tourette and a Frenchie. Insults are going to fly all over the place

[Viking]

But why do you believe so?

See this debate.

This depends on distance - if a Jewish state exists bordering Hitler's Germany, or Germany's neighbors, they would be quickly overrun. And if you have one place concentrating most of the Jews already, extermination becomes easier.

Superficially, what your idea advocates for is shuffling around mutually-hostile groups until they're sufficiently geographically distant from one another. This sounds familiar...

I was thinking of a state of Israel locate in the area where it is located today - the most logical area. It could have been created by, say, a generous Ottoman sultan (probably without Jerusalem) with a Jewish wife that he was very fond of, or by the British in the 1920s, because they somehow were concerned enough already then about the security of Jews in Europe to create such a state (would leave a bit of short time to prepare for the war, but maybe Britain could have wanted to groom this state as a future ally and sell/lease military hardware, or something).

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)).

Maybe Japan and China could carve up Southeast Asia and the Pacific among each other.

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

Economies of scale suggest that a single force of 50 jets could overpower 500 individual air forces. Either a central power dominates, or the organization has no practical effect - and that's what the historical evidence shows.

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.

Or it may not. "5th columns" have largely been a myth, and invaders who hoped to rely on them have often ended with egg on their faces.

The world is getting increasingly connected, both in terms of transportation and communication. In the past, an offshoot of an ethnic group in a distant country would be relatively disconnected from its origin and could develop in a very different direction - today, much has changed. Some first-generation immigrants (like some Pakistan families living in Europe) travel halfway around the world to their country of origin to get "suitable" spouses for their children.

Satellite TV also deserves a mention here.

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.

But at this point, feeding immigrants to fascists would only serve to grow the fascists. Eventually they will grow big enough to eat you, and you will have no one left to feed to them.

Pragmatism aside, peacable immigrants may hold higher moral value than monstrous locals.

If one perceives that immigration is both more problematic and more easily resolved as a problem than fascist resurgence, irreconcilable differences in values may be at play.

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.

Again, how?

Imagine there are no immigrants. 50% of the population wants to declare the aspen the country's national tree, while the other 50% want to declare the oak their national tree. If, in a few years, 40% favor the aspen and 55% favor the oak, would you say that aspen-lovers have "lost autonomy"?

Autonomy is concrete, and not a mere function of this or that demographic. You have to point out specific policies or structures that increase or decrease it.

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.

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.

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).

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.

One problem is that you appeal to contemporary conditions, but then imagine a contemporary world that is basically an alien planet in which nothing of contemporary conditions need be expected to apply.

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.

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.

You have not done two things:

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.

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.

But here's the mistake,and I warned against it in my first reply: if an imperial ruling class at some point becomes subject to another imperial ruling class, of course they would be less safe. They're no longer the overlords! That's an argument against empire/colonialism, and nothing more.

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?

[Gilrandir]

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.

Many countries in pre-WWII Europe have been witnessing Hitler's growing military ambitions (Czechoslovakia among them) supported by propaganda for quite a time, but no fortification nor militarization helped to stem the German tide. On the contrary, the mentioned fortification and militarization spurred Hitler to act sooner.

[Viking]

Many countries in pre-WWII Europe have been witnessing Hitler's growing military ambitions (Czechoslovakia among them) supported by propaganda for quite a time, but no fortification nor militarization helped to stem the German tide. On the contrary, the mentioned fortification and militarization spurred Hitler to act sooner.

The point is that anti-Jewish sentiment has been a thing in Europe since long before Hitler. While Hitler was still an aspiring painter, fortification and militarisation could have been the default for many decades in this hypothetical Jewish state.