First of all, this isn't a ban on Israeli-Palestinian marriage, this is a restriction on the ability to gain citizenship through those marriages. I don't agree with that, but I do think it's important to clarify.
Regarding comments I'm seeing here saying Israel is an apartheid state or that Israel is racist or that Israel the concept of a Jewish state is disgusting:
Israel is the size of New Jersey. It is the only state on earth there is a Jewish majority. There are many places on earth where there is a Christian majority, and there are many places on earth where there is a Muslim majority.
The Jewish people represent a tiny percent of the world's population in part because they have been expelled from their homes throughout history, and the majority of them were killed in the 1940s.
Why does it matter to have a Jewish state? Because it is a measure of defense against what has happened countless times throughout history.
The problem with a Jewish state in Israel:
Obviously, Israel, and especially Jerusalem, is a holy state for multiple groups. Those groups have a justifiable interest in living in Israel and enjoying the same rights as Israeli citizens. The issue is that if citizenship is freely given, Jews become the minority in Israel and it is no longer a Jewish state.
If you say "Good," to that, that is your opinion, and I will add that there are Jewish Israelis who agree with you. There is debate in Israel and abroad whether Israel should be a Jewish state of a state of the Jews. In the latter, there is more room for Palestinians--as it stands, this is not the policy of the current coalition.
Israel was not built by its founders to be a melting pot, it was built as a home for displaced Jewish people. It was not built to be a place of equality, and unfortunately, by its nature it cannot be one and continue to serve its purpose. If you think that purpose is racist, you are entitled to that opinion, but there are many who believe what Jews have faced throughout history justify a Jewish homeland, and it is very difficult to have a Jewish homeland, at least in Israel, without maintaining a Jewish majority.
Obvious diversion from the core issue. Israel must either grant the occupied lands true sovereignty and have their ethnostate or end the occupation and grant them equal civilian rights. Either way they must end their occupation of both Gaza and the West Bank.
You start off saying that it's 'disgusting' to call Israel a racist state and then conclude by saying that it was always intended to be a 'Jewish state' and not a 'melting pot'. That's highly contradictory and defending a very racist policy, which is indeed, disgusting.
My comment was phrased poorly. I didn't mean to say it was disgusting to call Israel a racist state, I commented on people who are calling Israel's actions disgusting--I apologize if that wasn't a clear distinction in my comment--quotation marks would have made it clearer. I don't think it's disgusting to have an opinion on Israel's actions and policies.
I would argue that the core issue around this article is not the occupations of Gaza and the West Bank. For one, while Israel has tremendous control over the Gaza region, it is self governed and not occupied by Israel--that's semantics, but I do want to make the distinction between the level of autonomy Gaza has versus the level the West Bank has.
I agree with the two options you put forwards, and I personally prefer the latter. I think the only path to peace in Israel is to end the occupation, make peace with Gaza, move the capital to Tel Aviv, and establish Jerusalem as a U.N. Mandate. I don't think Israel has a valid claim to exclusive control over what many groups consider the holiest place on earth, but I also don't think other groups who consider it a holy place should have exclusive control over it either. Putting the U.N. in control of it is an imperfect solution, but better than what we have now for peace in the region. That's my two cents that no one asked for.
> Israel must either grant the occupied lands true sovereignty and have their ethnostate or end the occupation and grant them equal civilian rights
The last move in that direction - the retreat of Israel from Gaza, brought Hamas to power . Whether there's ever peace doesn't solely depend on Israel. Israel is actually not a very important piece of the puzzle imo, most Israelis know very well peace is in their best interest. There's just not many buyers on the other side.
You can try diverting from the core issue at hand, using semantic sleights of hand, but it’s becoming apparent that Israel is indeed an apartheid state.
By the laws it enacts and the oppression they enable, it is the definition of a racist state.
The world is beginning to see it too, though very slowly.
I think in a conversation that's this divisive it's critical to be semantically very clear. I don't know that I'm using any sleights of hand, but if you want to agree to very specific definitions on the terms being discussed I always think that's useful.
Regarding the apartheid analogy:
I don't want to get into a semantic sleight of hand here, but the term apartheid comes from Dutch Afrikaans to describe their rule over South Africa. I genuinely don't believe the analogy of Dutch settlers colonizing Africa is comparable to displaced Jews establishing Israel. But again, you could consider my use of colonizing versus establishing a semantic sleight of hand. Depending on your definition of colonization, you could say Israel is a colonial state. I'm not saying that's what you're saying, but I don't agree with that definition.
If we're defining racism as unequal treatment of different groups based on race, then yes, Israel is a racist state because clearly, as is evident from this article, they are treating groups differently based on race (that is, if we're defining Judaism as a racial/ethnic designation rather than a religious one). I will not defend Israel's treatment of the Palestinian people, but I think it is worth defending the concept of Israel as a state that does not fundamentally need to be racist.
Stop, just stop this nonsense! you know you are using strawman arguments to justify oppresion based on ethnicity, religion or whatever else in the 21st century for crying out loud. How is this supposed to be a well behaved representation of "democracy"? it clearly is not!
> I genuinely don't believe the analogy of Dutch settlers colonizing Africa is comparable to displaced Jews establishing Israel. But again, you could consider my use of colonizing versus establishing a semantic sleight of hand. Depending on your definition of colonization, you could say Israel is a colonial state.
What else is it but a sleight of hand? Like in your first comment, all of your words are chosen to sound like Israel was formed on un-ocuppied land, as if the Zionist movement found a piece of desert and established a Jewish state there, and now their envious neighbors are seeking to colonize and attack them. In fact, they came and settled an area of immense religious significance to half the world's population that had been inhabited by hundreds of thousands or millions of Arabs for hundreds of years.
And they came with the explicit intention of not only living there, but being the majority population there: an act that explicitly required an ethnic cleansing (or genocide) of Palestine by its very definition.
The existential crisis of Judaism is indeed a core issue, although I am of the opinion that it does not justify the tactics and laws present. That does make it an Apartheid state.
However, OP used no semantic sleights and the suggestion he did is concerning to discourse. He was describing its origins, and you its current conditions. If you reject the idea the Jewish people would like / need a homeland then just say that.
“ Regarding comments I'm seeing here saying Israel is an apartheid state or that Israel is racist or that Israel the concept of a Jewish state is disgusting”
Then later on says:
“Israel was not built by its founders to be a melting pot, it was built as a home for displaced Jewish people. It was not built to be a place of equality, and unfortunately, by its nature it cannot be one and continue to serve its purpose”
How does that make sense? How is this logically coherent?
Well its no different to showing you a pack of cards (i.e Israel is not a place of equality by their own omission).
And then making the entire pack of cards disappear (calling Israel is racist).
Granted OP does it in a different order.
Dude should be on Penn and Teller hes a goddamn magician.
The phrasing of the disgusting line is unclear, I apologize. I'm not calling people claiming that disgusting, I'm commenting on people who are calling the concept of a Jewish state disgusting, as in, I'm commenting on people who are saying "the concept of a Jewish state is disgusting."
I would still love to meet Penn and Teller though.
"Israel was not built by its founders to be a melting pot, it was built as a home for displaced Jewish people. It was not built to be a place of equality, and unfortunately, by its nature it cannot be one and continue to serve its purpose. If you think that purpose is racist, you are entitled to that opinion, but there are many who believe what Jews have faced throughout history justify a Jewish homeland, and it is very difficult to have a Jewish homeland, at least in Israel, without maintaining a Jewish majority. "
So it was built to be an 'institutionally racially segregated' state?
I don't think it was built with the intention of subjugation, but I think it has been a consequence of its implementation and politics. I do think there is a version of a Jewish state that doesn't behave like this, but its current political consensus is not that state.
Yes. The premise of a state which is 'for' a specific group inherently employs segregation. I say subjugation because I think there is a version of that system that maintains a Jewish ruling majority without subjugating the minority.
Again, you can agree or disagree with a state that is built on segregation, but I ask that you include in your judgement the history and context of Israel's existence.
It's definitely a very difficult issue, and the answer is definitely better left to someone with more political experience than myself (having zero), and with more knowledge of the Israeli political structure, but to start with-
1. Israel should move its capital to Tel Aviv and Jerusalem should become a U.N. Mandate. No single group should have exclusive claim over what many groups consider their holiest place.
2. There remains a permanent group like the U.N. security council in the Knesset that represents the Jewish people and their interests in the state of Israel, so regardless of the makeup of the coalition government, the interest of a Jewish state/state of the Jews remain effective - this is the least undemocratic way there could be representation while maintaining representation
3. All occupied territories are either returned or annexed--if annexed, full citizenship and rights are given to those who live there
Those are just my thoughts. I'm sure greater minds would come up with greater opinions. I just firmly believe there is a way to co-exist.
If the conflict ended and the area accepted Israel in its current form, it wouldn't be that much different than being a minority in any other Western country.
More importantly it was built in Palestine. So they kicked out Palestinians from their own land, restricted them to small piece of land and now they are kicking them even from the stolen part of land after marrying the Israelis.
> So it was built to be an 'institutionally racially segregated' state?
Yes those damn racist Jews.
If the West had a big problem with the concept it could have idk...not kill all the Jews? But that was too difficult a task the last few centuries. So here we are.
Yes I do find the concept of a Jewish state disgusting. It leads to a theocracy.
"The issue is that if citizenship is freely given, Jews become the minority in Israel and it is no longer a Jewish state"
This can be easily resolved if Israel would define what it's borders are. But Israel does not in fact want to be a normal country it is run by religious extremists.
That's where the argument over whether Israel should be a Jewish state or a state of the Jews comes from. Should Israel be a Jewish theocracy, or should it be a secular homeland for the Jewish people as an ethnic group? If you find theocracies disgusting, there are plenty of theocratic states you should also be pointing your disgust at.
The right wing element in Israel has definitely held power for a long time and their policies have led to the subjugation of minority groups (I am not defending this), though those are not the religious extremists, they are just nationalists.
And yet it hasn't. It's a democracy. Has been since the founding.
> run by religious extremists
It's run by whomever people of Israel elect. The purpose of this country is to protect the Jews from various pogroms and genocides that keep occurring to them with a disturbing regularity.
Was this even an argument? it felt more like "We should have a Jewish state because we can and there nothing anyone can do about it, if you are not Jewish go fuck yourself. "
History has nothing to do what is happening today. You are just trying to drive the narrative anyway you can.
All of your arguments are dancing around a very important fact: Israel was not founded on barren land, it was founded on a land where hundreds of thousands of Arabs had lived for many generations. It was founded by driving these Arabs out - initially with peaceful means, but very quickly through force of arms.
Not content with pushing most Arabs out of most of what used to be called Palestine, Israel then occupied the remaining lands where they fled and is trying to colonize more and more of that land, keeping it under their own control but refusing to even annex it.
If the Jews of the world had sought a sanctuary, a much more appropriate deal would have been to carve out a piece of defeated Germany to create a Jewish state, probably around a formerly Jewish-majority city. Instead of that, the search for a Jewish homeland was led by Jewish religious fundamentalists, that wanted to live in the land they believe God assigned to them. The vast majority of Jewish people were (and still are) much closer culturally to Europe than to the Arab world anyway, having been driven out of historic Israel some thousand years before that.
I will not mention the similar plight of the Roma people, who no one saw fit to give a country to after the Holocaust either.
>the search for a Jewish homeland was led by Jewish religious fundamentalists
Not initially. This myth of the Jewish homeland only took hold after the turn of the century.
The early Zionist movement was primarily ideological and not religious. In fact, the religious Jews dismissed Zionism as a form of secularization and modernization, while secular Jews feared that the new ideas would raise questions about the Jews’ loyalty to their own nation-states and would thus increase antisemitism[1].
When the Reformists first encountered Zionism, they rejected the idea of redefining Judaism as nationalism and the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine. However, their anti-Zionist stance shifted after the creation of the state of Israel in 1948.
After1904, the fixation on Palestine as the only territory in which Zionism could be implemented was reinforced by the growing power of Christian Zionism in Britain and in Europe. Evangelical archeologists who excavated “the Holy Land” welcomed the settlement of Jews as confirming their religious belief that the “Jewish return” would herald the unfolding of the divine promise for the end of time.
They felt, and still feel, that the return of the Jews was the precursor of the return of the Messiah and the resurrection of the dead. The Zionist project of colonizing Palestine was well served by this esoteric religious belief.
However, behind these religious visions lay classical anti-Semitic sentiments. For pushing Jewish communities in the direction of Palestine was not only a religious imperative; it also helped in the creation of a Europe without Jews.
It represented a double gain: getting rid of the Jews in Europe, and at the same time fulfilling the divine scheme in which the Second Coming was to be precipitated by the return of the Jews to Palestine (and their subsequent conversion to Christianity or their roasting in Hell should they refuse) [2].
[1] Ami Isserof, “Opposition of Reform Judaism to Zionism: A History,” August 12, 2005, at zionism-israel. com.
[2] Stephen Sizer, “The Road to Balfour: The History of Christian Zionism,” at balfourproject.org.
> If the Jews of the world had sought a sanctuary, a much more appropriate deal would have been to carve out a piece of defeated Germany to create a Jewish state
Of course this was never offered, and it would have been too late anyway - since 6 million Jews have already been slaughtered and since Jews where already very close to their own statehood in Palestine.
Also - sounds pretty morbid to me to found the Jewish state near Berlin in 1947, I'm not sure all the Jewish refugees would have been super thrilled to go back to the old neighbors know what I mean?
> I will not mention the similar plight of the Roma people, who no one saw fit to give a country to after the Holocaust either
What are you arguing here. If Roma people want a country beacause they are persecuted they should get one. That's the right of self determination. I am assuming Roma people never pushed for this for whatever reason. Also, you start by saying you will not mention but then you do mention.
> Also - sounds pretty morbid to me to found the Jewish state near Berlin in 1947, I'm not sure all the Jewish refugees would have been super thrilled to go back to the old neighbors know what I mean?
And yet other victims of the holocaust did just that. The move to create a Jewish state in Palestine was primarily led by Jewish fundamentalists who wanted to return to their God-given promised land, it was not a necessity by any measure (as proved by other victims of the German Holocaust).
> The move to create a Jewish state in Palestine was primarily led by Jewish fundamentalists who wanted to return to their God-given promised land
Most founders of Zionism were secular/atheists. Theodor Hertzel, Jabotinsky, Weizmann. Most of them were definitely not fundamentalists of Judaism that's igonrance.
> it was not a necessity by any measure (as proved by other victims of the German Holocaust)
Nothing is a necessity. Jews could have indeed done nothing and not even try to escape the holocaust (most of them did just that in fact). I'm still not sure what point you're making. No nation is a necessity, life itself isn't a necessity.
> Israel was not built by its founders to be a melting pot, it was built as a home for displaced Jewish people. It was not built to be a place of equality, and unfortunately, by its nature it cannot be one and continue to serve its purpose. If you think that purpose is racist, you are entitled to that opinion...
Not really, because according the IHRA espousing such a view is antisemitic[0].
I don't agree that there is anything fundamentally antisemitic about criticizing Israel or its policies. While I think some antisemitic people hold that viewpoint, there is plenty of valid criticism for the actions of the Israeli government and its military. Sometimes, saying criticism of Israel is antisemitic is just a way of shutting down someone who is giving criticism, though, conversely I will also say that it's unfair to claim any dissent to dissent is an accusation of antisemitism. I'm not accusing you of that, I did want to bring it into the discourse though, given your point.
I will include the quote you're citing here for the purpose of a TL;DR: Under a list of "Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life," included is "claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor."
That's their definition, they do say at the top of the article it's a "Non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism," so anyone can draw their own. I personally don't think it's necessarily antisemitic to argue Israeli's policies are discriminatory/or racist, depending on how you are defining racism.
I get that Israel's military actions and discriminatory policies are motivated from a sense of insecurity. And I certainly agree that the stomach-churning horror of the holocaust is crucial historical context.
> they do say at the top of the article it's a "Non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism,"
Nevertheless, it has been broadly recognised by many organisations and political groups. The IHRA website lists[1] adoption by various governments including, for example, by executive order of the US President[2].
Despite the historical context, as a secularist and anti-racist I think that explicitly trying to maintain a "Jewish state" in opposition to local demographic trends probably is a racist endeavor. At the very least I think there's a reasonable argument to be made, and to people brand who think so as antisemites is pretty chilling.
Agreed, the ideology that people claiming Israel is an aprtheid state is largely a North American and Western Europe trope which I remember definitely did not oppose Nazism, in fact, there were many Americans in the 30s who supported Nazi ideology and this is reflected in the way Native Americans, African Americans and Asian Americans were treated.
These people believe that Americans fought Nazism in a heroic battle from the get go and that was just not true. It was only when US interests were at stake that they joined the war, the same way Ukranians today are finding out the hard way.
From this flawed understanding of history and a recent rise in romanticizing of equity (truth is humans are simply not equal, we are all born differently with innate and different nurturing) from a young, highly educated demographic with unsatisfying careers, naturally latch on to these distorted views.
I am not Jewish but the logic here is sound. Jews need their own country so they can take control of their destiny. A small dense country that starts giving citizenship to a culture that is open to radicalization, extremism and preaches hatred and violence to their children is a huge national security risk.
I just don't get why people are so emotional here. This is a simple exercise of logic, Israel isn't going away, so its on the Palestinians to make peace and co-exist and better themselves. Because launching rockets into civilian areas by using your own people as shields to play the world PR game like what Ukraine is doing might get people in the West who lean towards a certain political spectrum to come out of the wood works but all it does is make peaceful co-existence impossible.
There was also a moment in history when Israel showed leniency and sympathetic to poverty amongst Palestinians but this was answered with terror attacks on it's citizens that still happen today. This is not fighting for independence or political identity, this is destroying innocent people to justify their own hatred. If the Palestinians truly wanted peace and political independence then they must NOT allow violent groups like Hamas and PLO to lead them. They must not teach their children to commit terrorist acts instead teach them the tools they need to better themselves economically. In fact doing it this way would win them way more legitimacy but they keep going the wrong way. What else can be done when they themselves are incapable of decoupling from hatred?
Also in history classes, it makes it seem like Jews weren't living in Israel at all and they suddenly came and took the land. Jews & Palestinians have lived largely at peace during the British mandated Palestine. Due to the Holocaust, it just made sense to let them decide their own nationhood because I don't think the Mandatory Palestine was even recognized as a state. It was just another case of good ole boys from Brit'eun drawing random lines and just leaving.
The simple fact of the matter is Jews cannot live in peace in many parts of Arab/Muslim countries but Arab & Muslims & Palestinians can in Israel, make living and better themselves.
I really don't understand the anger and vitrol from HN users on this issue, for a crowd that touts rationalism and logic, it really is sad to see these hateful comments allowing to exist.
Israel is not an apartheid state. South Africa was.
I fully expect to be downvoted and flagged for sharing this thought.
> I am not Jewish but the logic here is sound. Jews need their own country so they can take control of their destiny.
Why exactly? I'm genuinely curious.
>Israel is not an apartheid state. South Africa was.
We now have 3 major human rights organizations saying Israel is practicing apartheid against the Palestinians.
We also have former South Africans openly saying Israel's apartheid is actually worse than that practiced in South Aftrica. I would venture that these people would know:
"Their humiliation is familiar to all black South Africans who were corralled and harassed and insulted and assaulted by the security forces of the apartheid government."
"Observers in South Africa are preparing to mark "Israeli Apartheid Week" on Monday. Tutu, meanwhile, has declared his support for the use of boycotts and economic sanctions as a means to compel Israel to alter its policies."
I believe that people get angry about it because the human rights abuses have gone on for so long without any noticeable change in Israeli policy. Some of this is related to the myth of equating Zionism with Judaism and as the location of Mandatory Palestine as the mythical homeland for the "ancient" Children of Israel.
After1904, the fixation on Palestine as the only territory in which Zionism could be implemented was reinforced by the growing power of Christian Zionism in Britain and in Europe. They believe, and still believe, that "Jewish return” would herald the "end of time" and the return of the Messiah.
It represented a double gain: getting rid of the Jews in Europe, and at the same time fulfilling the divine scheme in which the Second Coming was to be precipitated by the return of the Jews to Palestine [1].
[1] Stephen Sizer, “The Road to Balfour: The History of Christian Zionism,” at balfourproject.org.
This is the prevailing narrative in the West (especially in the US). The counter narrative, and this has been promoted by the New Historians (Israeli's in the 1990s) and Arab historians (since the 1950s), has been that the formation of the state of Israel was primarily a settler colonial enterprise: immigration started ramping up from 1910-40 and completed with the expulsion of 750,000 Palestinians (from early 1948 to 1949) and the looting and destruction of their villages (both to prevent return and to erase any memory of the indigenous people (Arab Jews, Arab Christians and Arab Muslims) that inhabited Mandatory Palestine.
Not sure if that helps but it should give you a summary of the prevailing narratives.
The crux of my understanding is this. The Holocaust created the need for a Jewish as a final solution. It wouldn't have been possible without European's support and it's also obvious to me the geopolitical interest is what drove them—to establish a Western friendly state in the Middle East.
Mandatory Palestine simply was not a country or recognized as such. PLO, Hamas, these guys aren't fighting for independence in my view, they are out to destroy, out of hatred and self-pity.
I'm not going to side with a culture that teaches their kids to kill their enemies at an institution where academic learning should take place. I always side with a culture that teaches tolerance, peace and education.
If the Palestinians truly wanted political independence, then they chose the worst way to do it, through violence. The IRA gave this up when they realized they could achieve independence politically and economically. My hope is that the Palestine side realizes this and overthrows Hamas and PLO with a rational minded leader.
It's also not out of the ordinary to assume under the security threats that Israel faces not only from Palestine but also its neighbors, that their security apparatus is aimed at prioritizing the safety of its citizens and sovereignty which means a pro-longed war.
It is similar in some ways to South Korea's situation but worse in many ways—you have a densely populated small mass land connected on all sides to hostile conventional forces as well as asymmetric threats from within. then I ask is the Korean peninsula an apartheid state? It's very clear to me as an outsider to see which one is the aggressor and poorer.
South Africa is under a completely different premise—it's goal was colonialism and its aftermath was an ugly systematic racism. Israel was created for very different reasons, it was the systematic persecution based on theology and class envy based on stereotypes that formed out of long existing persecutions.
So no, to me, the Palestine-Israel situation is completely different from South Africa's policy which was aimed at keeping the Dutch descendants colonial wealth.
Is America an apartheid state? No but there are certain elements that remind us of it in parts of it. Having said that is there also part of Israel that is uncomfortable to North Americans and Western Europeans because we believe we live in an open society yet its ridiculous to me how we ignore our own problems and our own hypocrisy towards "outsiders".
My message to people who support Palestine is this—you have change nothing you make it worse because you embolden these violent terrorist groups that run it which in turn creates overwhelming response from the people that get attacked.
I will never understand people who get upset when a terrorist group launches rocket attacks on civilians and it is met with equal or greater force.
Many conflate the pro-longed war as apartheid state, well in that logic, Korean peninsula is an apartheid state for making North Koreans poor. They did it to themselves after decades of asymmetric warfare and conventional attacks on the South.
Terrorism and violence as a way to push political independence is counter-productive, it only removes credibility for your cause. If you support Palestine that means you also being okay with terror attacks or "freedom fighters".
Let me remind you a group calling themselves The Base also sought to launch terrorist attacks to liberate their skin tone, ironically calling themselves after terrorists that attacked their country. Are neo-nazi white supremacist groups in America living in an apartheid state? In their head they are, at least according to the FBI
Regarding comments I'm seeing here saying Israel is an apartheid state or that Israel is racist or that Israel the concept of a Jewish state is disgusting:
Israel is the size of New Jersey. It is the only state on earth there is a Jewish majority. There are many places on earth where there is a Christian majority, and there are many places on earth where there is a Muslim majority.
The Jewish people represent a tiny percent of the world's population in part because they have been expelled from their homes throughout history, and the majority of them were killed in the 1940s.
Why does it matter to have a Jewish state? Because it is a measure of defense against what has happened countless times throughout history.
The problem with a Jewish state in Israel:
Obviously, Israel, and especially Jerusalem, is a holy state for multiple groups. Those groups have a justifiable interest in living in Israel and enjoying the same rights as Israeli citizens. The issue is that if citizenship is freely given, Jews become the minority in Israel and it is no longer a Jewish state.
If you say "Good," to that, that is your opinion, and I will add that there are Jewish Israelis who agree with you. There is debate in Israel and abroad whether Israel should be a Jewish state of a state of the Jews. In the latter, there is more room for Palestinians--as it stands, this is not the policy of the current coalition.
Israel was not built by its founders to be a melting pot, it was built as a home for displaced Jewish people. It was not built to be a place of equality, and unfortunately, by its nature it cannot be one and continue to serve its purpose. If you think that purpose is racist, you are entitled to that opinion, but there are many who believe what Jews have faced throughout history justify a Jewish homeland, and it is very difficult to have a Jewish homeland, at least in Israel, without maintaining a Jewish majority.