"Even some Israelis suspect the demand is intended to complicate — but the idea has wide support nonetheless. To be criticized even for the desire to have a state of their own — a dream allowed people the world over, from the Irish to the Iranians — chafes many Jewish Israelis"

The Irish get a state...
The Iranians get a state...
The Armenians get one...
The Kurds and Tibetans DESERVE a state, but that's story...

The Jews deserve a state.
They won that state, and have defended it over and over for nearly 70 years now.
The Palestinians HAD THEIR CHANCE at a state.
They could have accepted the proposal that would've split the land between them.
They and the Egyptians famously said they'd "push the Jews into the sea."
The Jews--surprise!--were NOT about to be "pushed into the sea" after the Holocaust and with American weaponry and backing...and they're still there...
And 70 years, many wars and a probable nuclear arsenal later, they're not going ANYWHERE.

Let Israel be The Jewish State, and create a Palestinian State already.

Recognize it as a Jewish State and stop the expansion into the West Bank.

This move is not a good faith move by the Israelis, knowing full well with the Arab minority and the issue of the refugees that this demand will not be accepted. Making this a condition of talks is just an example of moving the goalposts to ensure their failure.

" Iranian is not an ethnic group. Iran is a poor example. Iran could call itself a "Persian state" but it doesn't, because plenty of Azeris and other groups live there."

OK, Persian state...I was going by the article there (hence my quoted line.)

My core assertion remains intact.

*The Kurds and Tibetans DESERVE a state, but that's ANOTHER story...

On the Kurdish note, I wonder when Western powers will pull for that Kurdish state...or call for Turkey to own up to the Armenian Genocide...damn that valuable airspace of theirs...one can only hope a grassroots movement within Turkey itself one day calls for that injustice to be accounted for.

Iranian is more an umbrella term that covers a group of linguistic, ethnic identities. There are quite a few ethnic groups within Iran, with varying degrees of alignment or not with the national-ethnic concept of Iranian.

obiwanobiwan: Are you sober?

Ironic that you mention those two things in the same breath, since the Kurds were largely responsible for the Armenian genocide.

I don't see any move toward supporting a kurdish state by any Western power that matters.

"This move is not a good faith move by the Israelis, knowing full well with the Arab minority and the issue of the refugees that this demand will not be accepted. Making this a condition of talks is just an example of moving the goalposts to ensure their failure."

1. They're already not fully accepted because
2. They're not trusted in part because
3. It's rather hard to trust a minority that considers you an occupying force and is willing to launch rockets and bomb buses for 70-odd years to try and get you to leave.

Israel is by no means--NO MEANS--perfect, but let's be fair here...

There's a reason they don't want "right of return" on the table, and it's because they know damn well what happened when THEY immigrated en masse when the British controlled the area. Dealing with a minority that already hates you is difficult enough...dealing with enemies that surround and outnumber you is already enough...

They don't want those problem merging with a mass influx of Palestinians.

Fair or not, it's 70 years on, and the Palestinians need to recognize Israel as a Jewish state if they want their own...and again, as there are so many Muslim countries in the region, and plenty of Christian ones, and plenty representing ethnic groups all over the world, I think it's perfectly fair they ask for this.

It may well be a time-stalling move, I don't deny that--

I also think it IS a fair thing to ask for.

I have to question whether creating a nation is the best solution for all ethnic groups really.

"Iranian is more an umbrella term that covers a group of linguistic, ethnic identities. There are quite a few ethnic groups within Iran, with varying degrees of alignment or not with the national-ethnic concept of Iranian."

Again, was just keeping with the article's own language there...so fine, insert your own examples, I really don't need the Iranian one.

"Ironic that you mention those two things in the same breath, since the Kurds were largely responsible for the Armenian genocide."

Doesn't change the fact they deserve a state, in my opinion...I'm not going to keep a state from them based on what their great-great grandparents did, the same way I don't think Palestinians (or Israelis, for that matter) should have to answer for "the sins of the father" for the 70+ years.

BOTH deserve and, frankly, need states. THEIR states.

Jews in Palestinian lands would be as uneasy as the Palestinian situation is in Israel right now...because when you're in the minority, using bombs and rockets are tools of freedom fighting...when you're in the majority, it's terrorism.

(I think we can all mostly agree Hamas is a terrorist organization and, whatever they may do for the Palestinians, NOT something we'd like to see spread, but I'll leave that one alone, because hopefully we can agree...Hamas, bad in the eyes of the West, at least, yes?)

What about a Druze nation state?
What about Uighur nation state?
What about a Wigger nation state?

Does everyone with an ethnic identity get one?

"I have to question whether creating a nation is the best solution for all ethnic groups really."

...The Palestinians DO deserve a state...and the Jews do as well...

And both really did/do need one.

Why wouldn't it be the best solution (what would you propose instead? While a fully-integrated Israel might be nice, at best it'd be weird in what should be a Jewish state, and at worst...well, you have what's going on right now, terrorist bombings and Israeli laws that crack down on the innocent and guilty alike because they're trying to stamp out those bombings with extreme measures...which is a pretty shit strategy, sure, but nevertheless an understandable--understandable =/= GOOD--one.)

They already have a state, so what is the point of demanding the recognition of its Jewishness, except to alienate the Arab minority and piss off the PLO before talks even begin? It used to be that Israel would demand recognition of Israel, but now they want Israel as a Jewish state recognized. It wins Israel no sympathy at all.

What about Israeli Druze? Israeli Beduin? Where do they fit into a Jewish state?

The Palestinians deserve a state, yes, but it is a separate issue from the choice of the Israeli government to call itself a Jewish State.

"Why wouldn't it be the best solution (what would you propose instead?"

A Palestinian state is not viable. Any workable solution is impossible with Israel-as-Jewish-state. Israel needs to convince the Arabs living in Palestine and Israel that they're not hostile to their interests, and this does nothing to that end. The only solution is a Greenland/Denmark style solution whereby the West Bank is self-governing but Tel Aviv controls its foreign policy.

"What about a Druze nation state?
What about Uighur nation state?
What about a Wigger nation state?

Does everyone with an ethnic identity get one?"

If I had my way...yes. Every ethnic/ethnoreligious group, in an ideal world, SHOULD get a state. I'll say that unequivocally.

That being said, some factions are obviously bigger, louder, and (it could be argued) in more urgent need of a state than others.

The Armenians, Kurds and Jews all have faced the kind of persecution that not only shows how important a state is to protecting their identity (I'll speak to the Jewish vantage point personally and say you'll have a REAL hard time convincing me the Jews could ever be 100% safe in a state as minority "guests"...2,000 years of history backs that up, and that goes for other ethnoreligious groups too, to be fair, the Jews don't have a monopoly on being a persecuted minorities) but how instrumental a state has or could be in uniting those people and preserving them.

The sad reversal of that would be, ironically enough, many Native American "nations."

They still exist today, and in many cases legally own land as their own, but they don't have the kind of sovereignty, power or, sadly, numbers Israel has.

Fair or not, guns, bombs and nukes go just as far to making you a nation as does a flag and culture.

The flag and culture they can take way if they have a bigger army and enough people willing to die for it...which the Arab world (and the US Cavalry a century ago) showed time and again to be the case.

...That's a wee bit harder to do when Israel in all probability could press a button or two and decide to bomb the whole Holy Land back to oblivion if the day came they were all about to be wiped out in the style so many Native American tribes were.

Maybe we should call Idaho the Aryan State. Because Aryans deserve a state.

"They already have a state, so what is the point of demanding the recognition of its Jewishness, except to alienate the Arab minority and piss off the PLO before talks even begin?"

1. I've already said that's part of the diplomatic point, for sure, I don't deny that.

2. The point is--mainly--to encourage Palestinians to A. emigrate to a new Palestine (presumably because they won't want to live in a Jewish State that's formally recognized as such), B. Deny the right of return (because Israel knows better than anyone what happens when millions of past occupants come back to their old stomping grounds bearing guns), and C. To respond to the idea in the Muslim world that land that was once Muslim is then always-rightfully Muslim.

"Maybe we should call Idaho the Aryan State. Because Aryans deserve a state."

Wikipedia, but sourced if you like...

"In present-day academia, the term "Aryan" has been replaced in most cases by the terms "Indo-Iranian" and "Indo-European", and "Aryan" is now mostly limited to its appearance in the term "Indo-Aryan" for Indic languages and their speakers.[2]"

As I'm pretty sure the Indo, Iranian, and European parts of that ALL have states aplenty, I think we're good on that front.

(That being said...eh, it's Idaho, no one cares, do what ya want, just give us our potatoes.) :p

Iran-ic

"A Palestinian state is not viable."

I and the rest of the world REALLY hope you're wrong there...

"Any workable solution is impossible with Israel-as-Jewish-state."

Israel has to live with neighbors that are Muslim states...they can't put up with a Jewish one? (OK, silly question, perhaps, as they haven't for 70 years, but states that shall remain nameless continue attacking or encouraging attacks on Israel and are liable to do so whether or not it's deemed officially Jewish...why not let them deem it Jewish?)

"Israel needs to convince the Arabs living in Palestine and Israel that they're not hostile to their interests, and this does nothing to that end."

That'd be a hell of a lot easier if A. that were true and B. that were true for both sides...they're both hostile to each others' interests.

"The only solution is a Greenland/Denmark style solution whereby the West Bank is self-governing but Tel Aviv controls its foreign policy."

While I agree Tel Aviv is going to have to be the capital (no way Palestine lets it be Jerusalem, that's going to have to be an international city with a TON of international support acting as peace-keepers, to borrow from President Bartlet for a moment...hey, there's a plan, Bartlet for America 2016, everyone, Martin Sheen's a guy we can ALL get behind, right?) I think a two-state solution CAN happen.

Some believe the nationalist ideal was a grave error from it's inception. The biggest problem you'll find throughout the Old World is the complex mosaic of ethnicity does not easily convert to national borders unless you have mass relocations. Different ethnic groups are all mixed up with each other. Plus you have gradations of ethnic difference. Where do you draw the line? Who decides?

If you look to France or Spain or the UK as models of nations that coincide with some language and ethnic group, you need to understand the long history of how they came to be. Linguistic standardization and political centralization occurred over centuries and involved no small amount of death and grief.

Hm, no one commenting on a Wigger Nation State?

I don't agree. Defining a nation in terms of ethnic or religious identity is oppressive ad wrong. Maybe this is because of my background in American secularism, but either way, people should not be excluded from migration to, and full participation and representation within, Israel or any other country.

I of course say this because I believe national loyalties and border systems that perpetuate these are something that should be phased out over the long run. The first step to do that is to create a secular, minority-including and -protecting state without undue immigration controls. Over time people will arrive and bring their cultures and ethnicity with them, as you are seeing in the US and Canada, and reshape the whole country's identity. Were this to be extended worldwide, a key basis for national loyalty and political sovereignty of nation-states would be erased. Which is a good thing. Same reason the EU is a good thing.

Israel should not constitutionally declare itself to be a Jewish state (though I expect that they will). Doing so would be an ultimate irony given that the Jews' desire for a state of their own stems from their non-acceptance as minorities in "Christian" states. They're fighting fire with fire. A state with an ethnic or religious basis will produce oppression.

They DESERVE states.

Deserve according to which xenophobic yardstick(s)?

WTF do you, or anybody for that matter, care?

The rattle of the eggbeater that you call your mind will never be silenced with an adult thought at the fervent loser rate you're going.

Recognize this all for the hate-filled nonsense that it is, or continue to exist as pseudo-intellectual moron driftwood.

The crack epidemic was slow to take hold in Canada, but I see it is going strong now.

"Israel has to live with neighbors that are Muslim states...they can't put up with a Jewish one? "

Not talking about Israel's neighbors. Israel's neighbors long ago wrote themselves out of any resolution of the Palestinian question. I'm talking about how Israel exists as a country with a Arab minority within its green line borders as well as a large Arab population under territory outside those lines that it administers. If Israel is going to resolve the situation it must get the Palestinians to accept that independence is not possible because independence is not compatible with Israeli security. A PLO state allied to Iran that severely narrows Israel's defensible borders is just not going to happen. Israel then has to get Palestinians to submit to the reality of protectorate status. Defining itself in narrow terms is just going to convince the Palestinians that co-existence with the Jews is impossible.

Far better that Israel learn from the experience of American Jews, who have fled to a country without such a basis, and thus have no need of a state of their own.

For the record I am not suggesting the USA is doing it right now, or ever has, since our exclusionary immigration policies are routinely responsible for the continued unfair exclusion of foreigners who want to come here.

How many migrants have to become skeletons in the deserts of the Southwest or become fish-food in the Mediterranean Sea and Indian Ocean before we understand that immigration barriers are unjust? (Outside of the barriers we use to protect ourselves from criminals, just as we keep our own countrymen in jails for our own safety. Not that that's what half our incarcerated people are in jail for these days, but I digress).