They aren’t the same thing, but there’s a really big overlap. Religion and culture get muddied all the time, too.
“Muslim” is not an ethnicity, idiot. It’s not even a collective set of related ethnicities, the way “Jewish” more-or-less is.
There are certainly Islamic-majority countries you could have picked where “ethnostate” is an accurate descriptor - Malaysia and Turkey come to mind - but you were so triggered by the words “Islamic Republic” you picked one of the most ethnically diverse ones. Like I said - funniest thing I’ve read all day (even though today’s SMBC was hilarious).
Cite that I said that? I was just mocking your stupidity. Ethnostate are wrong, as are states based on religion.
Queue the “what about…?”. Anything but discuss Israeli atrocities.
No? Where’d you pull that idea out of?
Israel does have different ethnic groups. And there are political parties loosely based on those ethnic groups. And there are sometimes political differences between the Ashkenazi and the Sephardim. And I’ve heard that the Africans sometimes face discrimination and charges of not being “real Jews”, although the official stance is that they are, and that’s the position of Israelis I’ve met. But I’ve never heard of any consistent “hating each other’s guts”. The gut-hating in Israel is mostly between Israelis and Palestinians, as best as i can tell.
You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.
Yup. Pakistan’s current President (a Shi`a Muslim) is from the Baloch tribe of Zardari, historically linked with the ancient Iranian Medes and Parthians. The Prime Minister is a Punjabi Kashmiri (and is Sunni). The Chief Justice of the Federal Shariat Court (also Sunni) is from a Bengali family. They’ve all got very different ancestral languages and ethnic backgrounds.
Calling Pakistan an “ethnostate” because it’s (nearly) all Muslim is like calling the Vatican (whose citizen population includes individuals of Italian, Filipino, Thai and Nigerian descent) an “ethnostate” because it’s all Catholic. (Heck, Muslim Pakistan isn’t even as religiously monolithic as the Christian Vatican, because it includes Sunni and Shi`a along with some tiny Hindu, Christian and Ahmadi minorities, whereas the Vatican doesn’t even have any Protestants.)
I pulled it out of, this person told me a story, not about Israel specifically, but he was some kind of Ashkenazi Jew, I believe Galician, and the story was that a family member of his wanted to marry some other kind of Jew, (Litvak?) and this was apparently really, really bad, as in it would have been less scandalous to go out with a Muslim or Christian or atheist. I dio not recall the exact ethnic groups involved, but it was absolutely a real-life case of “The only people we hate more than the Romans are the fucking Judean People’s Front”
The story in question took place outside of Israel, so it may well not apply at all. I apologize. Though, I have heard that religious and secular Jews in Israel do hate each other’s guts.
I mean, I’ve heard of Italian Catholic families and Irish Catholic families being distraught at the idea of a mixed marriage (between those two ethnic groups). I grew up where those were the two must coming ethnic groups, fwiw. But i wouldn’t say that the Irish Catholics and the Italian Catholics hate each other’s guts.
You know who Pakistan’s first ambassador to the United Nations was? Leopold Weiss from Lviv (better known as Muhammad Asad).
I’m a child of such a “mixed” marriage. I’ve met many more. It was definitely a thing in my generation. They love each other, you kidding? The latest generations’ ethnic feelings have by now been almost completely subsumed into general American homogenization, breakfast cereals and all. "No more Rice Krispies?!"
My avatar pic, Joan Baez, is a comparable mix of Italic and Celtic. The two were once one: Proto-Italo-Celtic was a thing. Lately they’ve been rejoining.
Actors, too. Robert DiNiro and Valerie Bertinelli for example.
But there was a time when that kind of marriage was a huge deal to the families.
And as you point out, that’s not because there’s some rabid insurmountable hated between the groups.
Anti-Zionists have as much right to define Zionism as Republicans have to define socialism.
What’s your point? I don’t see how that conflicts with my post.
“Zionism” has been so distorted by anti-Zionists that I don’t think it’s definition should be handed over to “user of words en masse.”
It’s not about should, it’s about how language works. And what you said goes pretty much exactly the same in reverse for the definition of anti Zionism. But it’s usage that defines definition - that’s language, no matter what anyone personally thinks about a particular definition.
I’m not claiming that any particular definition is right or wrong - I’m claiming that usage varies widely, and thus definitions vary widely.
It’s not really just the anti-Zionists who see it that way. The term Zionism has attached to the anti-Gazan crowd. If people want to keep that from becoming the definition in the wider world, they need to go out and say “I’m a Zionist, yet I do not support the Gazan genocide.”
Just like Christians can’t whine about being assumed to be anti-LGBT bigots. We just have to go out there and say “I’m a Christian, and trans rights are human rights.” Disavow the Zionists who are pro-genocide.
Do they need to say “genocide” in your book? Is that the litmus test?
Not saying you do but to some it is. Hence the relevance of this previous post:
“When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
iiandyiiii-Dumpty has spoken.
