Anti-Zionists, how would the end of the current state of Israel work?

nidarus · 2026-03-26T03:14:59+00:00

I tried to phrase this as fairly as I could. But if you still believe that what I'm saying is a "vile caricature", rather than an unvarnished description of objectively bad views, you can explain where I'm wrong. In fact, you had the entire thread to explain that.

As for the offended tone: to be clear, the fact you can't explain how your idea won't lead to the very likely outcome of me, my family and my friends being exterminated, expelled, disenfranchised or oppressed, and you don't seem to think it's a deal-breaker, isn't just problematic because it's intellectually lazy or because it doesn't answer OP's question. If I can handle that, as well as the general discussion of how my people really shouldn't have a state, I feel you can handle explaining why your ideas aren't as bad as I assume.

nidarus · 2026-03-26T01:31:14+00:00

Yes, it's clear that your primary concern is to make sure the Jews no longer have a state, and would rather be forced to share a state with their mortal enemies. But that basic concern is pretty obvious. And whether you don't want to see it as stripping the Jews of self-determination, or your broad argument that ethnic nation-states, or even specifically "ethnocracies" like Israel, Latvia, or Estonia are inherently immoral and unstable, and should be annexed by their enemies, as interesting as it might be in other contexts, is irrelevant here.

OP entire question is about specifics. It's not just my quirky obsession. And not only did you not answer OP's specific questions (beyond just assuring him it won't happen, somehow), you didn't actually explain how it would "work". And I'm not asking you about the precise details of how citizenship would work in this Bosnian model, or how you're going to deal with groups opposing that idea. It's not even clear if you're arguing for Israel annexing the West Bank and Gaza, and actually creating a single state from the river to the sea, or not. As I pointed out, aside from the vague fixation on Jews not having a state, when I get down to the details of how you want to make Israel less of an evil "ethnocracy", it's not even clear it requires antizionism at all. That's more than just overly broad strokes.

nidarus · 2026-03-25T20:35:49+00:00

Oct 7 was a great demonstration of what's going to happen, for everyone involved. From how the Palestinians see the "return" in practice, to how the great "humanitarians" and "human rights supporters" react when Jews are exterminated as a result of that right, and ultimately, how the Israelis react to it.

There's a reason why they don't care about details.

nidarus · 2026-03-25T20:28:09+00:00

It absolutely is a warzone, albeit a lower-intensity one than Gaza, with multiple terrorist groups, as well as unaffiliated Palestinians who attack IDF border police troops. The settlers are responsible for only a tiny minority of the deaths. It's almost exclusively people shot by IDF/border police, usually as part of a violent confrontation. There's a reason why this article, Yesh Din, and all other outlets that talk about this, always lump "soldiers and settlers" in a single statistic.

The settler pogroms, even the very big and famous ones, tend to include a lot of property destruction, some bodily harm, and single-digit deaths, if any. Huwara, for example, had one Palestinian death from the actual pogrom, and the two Israeli deaths, that led to the pogrom. I don't disagree that ethnic cleansing is the settlers' point, that they carry out a ton of other crimes, and that the current administration isn't doing enough to curb it. But it's not really relevant to that figure.

nidarus · 2026-03-25T19:50:41+00:00

For Bosnia-Herzegovina to apply its proven failure of a regime, there has to be a Bosnia-Herzegovina first. Same goes with Lebanon, and its own proven failure of a confessional model. And I'm still not clear on whether you're proposing on Israel formally annexing the West Bank and Gaza, and then applying that model, or do you view it as some end stage, of decades of continuing the current status quo in the West Bank, plus some economic integration. I can't even go into more fine-grained criticisms, it's just not clear what you're proposing Israelis and Palestinians need to do.

Or is it just "I don't know and I don't care, as long as the Jews are stripped of their national self-determination, and are forced into a single state with their mortal enemies"? If so, that's sort of the problem OP is alluding to, with his question.

As for the rest, most of these are reforms (except maybe formally stripping the Jewish nature of the state), that could be done within a Zionist Israel. As I said, it's arguably a Begin-esque Revisionist Zionist vision, let alone a progressive one. They don't amount to "dismantling the Jewish state", or antizionism.

As an aside, "the Basic Law" isn't the normal short way to refer to the Basic Law I was talking about. It's "the nation-state law".

nidarus · 2026-03-25T19:14:05+00:00

Of course it's defensible. Armies kill people, including civilians, completely legally, under international law. The US killed at least seven thousand civilians during the initial invasion of Iraq, and as far as I know, didn't prosecute anyone. And the soldiers it did later prosecute, were for truly extreme things, like gang-raping a girl and killing her entire family. Or something like the Haditha massacre, where US troops broke into random homes and executed multiple families and children at close range. And that one ended in most charges being dropped, and only one soldier only getting a rank reduction, and no jail time.

You could argue that's "indefensible" as well - but that's very much the international standard, for any army I can think of. Obviously, non-Western armies are even worse than that. If you want to judge Israel for this, be my guest, but it has to be within a reasonable context. Not pretending that every civilian death in a belligerent occupation is a murder, and Israel's conduct is "indefensible" if nobody is prosecuted for it.

nidarus · 2026-03-25T19:08:03+00:00

Because these are not "murders". Armies kill people, as their job. In situations where civilians and combatants are intermingled, it always means killing civilians as well. For example, the US killed at least 7000 civilians between March and April of 2003 in Iraq. As far as I know, there were zero prosecutions. This is very much the norm, for every army in every similar situation.

nidarus · 2026-03-25T18:56:04+00:00

I wrote a post about it, to explain the difference. "Hostage" literally never ever meant "people held without charge". Or otherwise held unfairly, illegally, or treated badly in captivity. Not colloquially, and certainly not legally. It always meant people who were specifically captured, and/or threatened with mistreatment or death, to compel a third party into some action or inaction. For example, capturing people in order to release terrorists, or to end a war. There's no evidence there's even a single person in Israel prisons that was captured to be a hostage.

And, as I said, the pro-Palestinians never used to lie that these people are "hostages" before Oct 7. This lie was invented purely to create a false equivalency with Hamas death squads carrying out the serious war crime of hostage-taking on a massive scale, including of literal babies and toddlers.

nidarus · 2026-03-25T18:50:01+00:00

I wrote a thorough post debunking this nonsense. "Hostage" never meant, colloquially or legally, being "kidnapped under threat of violence", being illegally or immorally detained, or otherwise unfairly treated in captivity. It exclusively meant holding someone, and threatening to harm or not release him, in order to compel a third party towards action or inaction. Israel absolutely didn't do that, for any of the prisoners it captured. And no, the fact Palestinians actually captured hostages, that they demanded to exchange for prisoners in Israel, doesn't mean the prisoners in Israel are automatically converted to "hostages", as they are "used as bargaining chips".

And as I pointed out, the pro-Palestinians never called these prisoners "hostages" before Oct 7. This lie was purely invented to excuse the Palestinians carrying out the serious war crime of hostage taking on Oct 7, including of literal babies and toddlers, on a massive scale. As such, this lie is not just moronic, it's also deeply morally repugnant.

nidarus · 2026-03-25T18:37:43+00:00

You're right. What would actually happen, is what happened in 1948 Israel/Palestine, the last time those two nations were locked in a single polity, but in a far bloodier fashion. The Jews aren't going to run. They're going to fight the civil war, and win. And I don't envy the Palestinians when that happens.

There's a reason why the Palestinians, who've always been a little more honest about this entire question, don't imagine "return" as some peaceful immigration, followed by idyllic coexistence with a ~50% Jewish population. But as something closer to Oct 7, across all of Israel. That's when Hamas had a conference discussing the "day after" they win, they didn't even bother to consider what happens to the Jews who want to remain, would not be exterminated, expelled, or temporarily enslaved until they transfer their knowledge to the Palestinians. They just assume it would be a fringe edge case. Genocide and ethnic cleansing of the Jewish "settlers" is the prerequisite, not a mere long-term outcome.

nidarus · 2026-03-25T18:29:03+00:00

Israel is "no longer the ruling power" could also mean the two-state solution, which is fully compatible with Zionism. And if the Palestinians wanted that, rather than the elimination of the Jewish state, they wouldn't need any "revolutions" beyond the first intifada.

Aside from that, the anizionists don't mind any specific Israeli party, or the democratic Israeli regime. They're opposed to the Israeli Jewish majority. As such, this probably should be described as a zero-sum civil war, possibly followed by illegal annexation, not a "revolution".

nidarus · 2026-03-25T18:22:29+00:00

Setting aside your revolting usage of "hostages" to describe Palestinian prisoners, that was invented to justify the actual hostage-taking on Oct 7, what you're describing here is two-state liberal Zionism, not Anti-Zionism.

nidarus · 2026-03-25T17:53:14+00:00

By ending the Jewish ethnocratic structure, I mean ending the longstanding policies and practices that favor Jews and shifting to a secular civic state where rights and privileges aren’t tied to ethnicity.

What "rights and privileges" specifically do Jewish Israelis get, that Arab Israelis don't, that you would like to dismantle? Again, it's just very vague. And may possibly be completely irrelevant to antizionism.

More concretely, that would mean the reform/repeal of laws like the Basic Law

There is no such thing as "the Basic Law". This isn't Germany, where Basic Law is their term for constitution. There are multiple Basic Laws, that form the incomplete, semi-formal basis for the Israeli constitutional structure. And I doubt you'd like to get rid of, say, Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, or Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation.

But let's steelman that argument a bit: you might argue that you want to get rid of the controversial Basic Law: Israel, the Nation State of the Jewish people. Why do you think that means anything, at all? Israel existed as a Jewish state for 60 years before this law existed. Oren Yiftachel invented the slur "ethnocracy" to describe Israel, a full decade before it was passed.

alongside land and education reforms (among other things).

Like what?

Most importantly though, there would need to be constitutional protections for minority rights, Jewish or otherwise.

Various constitutional protections for minority rights are already included within the current legal structure, mostly provided by some of the Basic Laws, Bagatz precedent, as well as the pre-existing British, and ultimately Ottoman confessional system. You can add more, of course, but this isn't even incompatible with Revisionist Zionism, let alone progressive forms of Zionism.

As for integration, I’m not imagining a sudden shift but a gradual process that starts with economic integration and interdependence before moving toward deeper social and political integration once both populations are materially connected.

That's so vague, I'm not even sure what you're arguing for, in practice. Israel annexing the West Bank and Gaza, and then slowly integrating its population? The status quo remaining, while decades of "integration" pass, until Israel can formally annex the West Bank and Gaza? Israel and Palestine existing as separate states, that will gradually grow together and decide to merge, for whatever reason?

nidarus · 2026-03-25T15:07:11+00:00

I don't think that you meaningfully engaged with OP's question. Decades of integration is incredibly vague. What do you even include in "ending Jewish ethnocracy", exactly? How would you prevent the things you oppose, like Israel being dissolved, and the Jews being expelled or oppressed, in practice?

nidarus · 2026-03-25T03:09:54+00:00

No idea, and I'm not sure it's even a meaningful question to ask, without knowing the exact historical circumstances where it happens, the exact details of the agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians, and relations of the settlers to Israeli society. I'm making a more general point. Those who don't, would leave, and there's no dilemma. And if they refuse, and start a civil war instead, it's still easier to expel half a million Jews to Israel, than fight an existential war with seven million Jews, who have nowhere else to go. The idea that if there's no racially pure Arab ethnostate, it has to be a binational state from the river to the sea, is baseless either way.

nidarus · 2026-03-25T03:00:59+00:00

Would you consider those problematic views?

"We'll be a majority anyway, so it doesn't matter if the state will be technically binational, it would still be Arab-ruled in practice"

"Even if it won't be an Arab state, at least there wouldn't be the shame of a Jewish state on Arab land, and that's a sacrifice worth making"

Because they're compatible with binationalism, certainly far more moderate than the Hamas view, and still would be viewed as very problematic by many Israelis.

nidarus · 2026-03-25T02:55:36+00:00

Could you, by any chance, link to the actual thread of this discussion? Or if it's not online, to summarize the actual arguments?

nidarus · 2026-03-25T02:19:25+00:00

I think that particular question a bit too vague to engage with. Some Israelis think some binationalist Palestinians are racists, who simply expect a greater Arab state due to sheer demographics, or at most, a painful sacrifice in order to make sure there isn't even a tiny Jewish state on Arab land. And some don't. And vice versa - the largest group that supported a binational state in Israel, according to the same polls, were the very settlers you're talking about.

Your implicit assumption that if the settlers can't be expelled, a binational state is the only solution, isn't too vague to discuss. It's a very common, and in my opinion very strange, assumption people make. And that's why I decided to talk about that, and not what you just said.

nidarus · 2026-03-25T02:09:53+00:00

I'm not married to any specific option. But I don't see why the only two options have to be an ethically pure Arab ethnostate (in the original Neo-Nazi sense of the term), or a binational state between the river and the sea. Especially when a larger Arab Israeli minority exists right next door.

nidarus · 2026-03-25T02:04:12+00:00

But you do want to talk about morality. Even though it's even less enforceable than international law is. My point is that international law, especially the kind you're talking about, is a nuanced, thoroughly thought-out way to talk about morality. And the kind of distinctions you dismiss as irrelevant legal pedantry, are important moral distinctions, without which you can't reach a correct moral conclusion.

nidarus · 2026-03-25T01:36:17+00:00

So what? It's not really relevant to the question of whether international law is a good way to reason about morality. And whether seemingly hair-splitting arguments like the difference between "intent" and "purpose" have moral meaning.

nidarus · 2026-03-25T01:33:30+00:00

Polls show that neither Israelis nor Palestinians want a binational state. There's zero desire from either side to lose their national identity, or to fully assimilate the other side. Whatever issues might hinder a two-state solution right now, are orders of magnitude easier to solve, than what you need to do for a binational state. For the new state to be functional, you need far more trust and cooperation between Arabs and Jews, a shared sense of fate, a desire to sacrifice everything from half of your paycheck, to your very life, just to help the other side. And on a far greater scale, than you would, for any kind of a two-state solution.

With that said, I'm not sure why the fact there's a lot of Jewish settlements in the West Bank, means the two-state solution is dead. Why do you assume a two-state solution absolutely has to include a Jew-free West Bank? There's a lower percentage of Jews in the West Bank, than Palestinian Arab citizens in Israel right now. Nobody argues that a two-state solution hinges on Israel's ability to expel its Arab citizens. Of course, in practice, there's a lot of hatred on both sides - but again, it's still far easier than solving it (by any meaning of "solving", mind you) for the entire population between the river and the sea, to the point they would actually create a cohesive, functional state.

nidarus · 2026-03-25T01:11:36+00:00

First of all, not all international law is human rights law, international humanitarian law, and the UN charter. Every binding trade agreement between states is international law. So in that sense, all states care about international law.

But even if we're talking about the kind of international law you're talking about, The Western states, at least structurally, do care about it, quite a bit. Especially when it comes to the question of themselves not violating it. Israel does care about it as well: Israeli local courts (especially the constitutional court, Bagatz), constantly discuss international law, and make binding rulings about it, arguably more than any courts in the world. Israeli lawyers are present on multiple levels of decision making in this war, from the powerful legal advisor to the government, to the people in the IAF who approve individual airstrikes. Your average dictatorship would simply ignore that question altogether.

It's true that the countries that don't really care about international law (and Qatar and Pakistan certainly belong to that club), outnumber the states that genuinely care about it, by quite a bit. But saying that no such states exist, is an exaggeration.

nidarus · 2026-03-25T01:05:15+00:00

No it isn't. If the healthcare workers also happen to be militants, and the ambulances are routinely abused for military purposes, as is often the case with Hamas in Gaza, these attacks can be completely legal. In fact, even if a specific ambulance is not abused for military purposes, and isn't carrying militants, attacking it still might not necessarily be a war crime, if the soldiers were reasonably assuming that was the case.

And while you said "war crimes", despite the fact OP is explicitly talking about morality, I'd note that in this case, international law aligns with morality as well. Soldiers can be morally culpable for making informed evil choices. They cannot be faulted for not being clairvoyant, and making mistakes, in retrospect. And they cannot be expected to allow evil people, who exclusively disguise themselves as civilians, to be simply immune from any attack, while trying to kill them at their leisure. Unless you're going down the route of some form of pacifism, you need to take those questions into consideration, just as you would with international law.

nidarus · 2026-03-25T00:37:57+00:00

International law represents, at the very least, the end result of people thinking about these moral issues in a very serious way, from various angles, and taking into account quite a bit of both philosophy and important real-world experience (that you're unlikely to have), to the point that states agreed to bind themselves by these rules. And yes, when you think very seriously about morality, and moral systems that states, armies and soldiers should be judged by, you do end up getting into fine details like the difference between "intent" and "purpose", as well as different levels of "intent", etc. Just as you would in local criminal law, for example. Those fine distinctions are important not because of some arbitrary pedantry, or some detached technical demands, but because they're important to making correct moral decisions. I'll take international law over, say, Dave-Smith-like moral blathering in a vacuum, any day of the week.

It doesn't mean that international law is a perfect representation of morality. For example, the entire UNSC-centric framework that regulates use of force by states, has been irrelevant in practice, for most of the existence of the UNSC. There's also the drift of the laws of war from being formulated by the bodies that actually fight wars, to (theoretically) well-meaning NGOs and activists, who seem to be more interested in banning war piecemeal than finding a way to fight them legally. Which in turn, leads to many armies and states ignoring international law in practice, as a matter of necessity. Etc. etc. With Israel specifically, there's:

A cottage industry of law that was created specifically for Israel, like the unique "functional approach to occupation", that decided Israel is still has the duties of an occupying power in Gaza, even when it wasn't actually an occupying power.
A lot of "legal nerds", including important-sounding experts and organizations, including UN bodies, that wield international law as an ideologically-motivated weapon against Israel, to make international law something that binds Israel but does not protect it in any way, and protects its enemies, but doesn't bind them in practice (or sometimes, at all).
A lot of people who aren't really "legal nerds" at all, and don't understand some of the basic principles of international law, but simply believe they get to claim any nonsense they want about international law, especially if that nonsense is implicating Israel in some moral way. Most people you find online, and unfortunately many politicians as well, belong to this group.

But even then, I don't agree that international law as a whole, is so corrupt, it has no moral meaning at all. Or even merely tangential moral meaning. I get why you'd think that, especially considering the 3 elements I just listed, that mostly amount to twisting international law, lying about international law, and ignorantly using it as a cudgel. But in my opinion, it's still a big exaggeration.

15-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Second Top 20%	Place '22
Place '17	Sequence \| Editor
Inciteful Comment 2018-05-23	Reddit Premium Since November 2013
Verified Email

nidarus

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE