You just called it a Jewish state and now you're pretending that a Jewish state isn't an ethnostate by definition. A purposefully created white state is an ethnostate; a purposefully created German state is an ethnostate; a purposefully created Jewish state is an ethnostate. Ethnostates are very very bad. And it doesn't matter who's a "true" member of the group; it matters only that there is a group. There could be an ethnostate for people with brown hair and that would be bad regardless of whether or not people with black hair were counted as brown-haired.
> you're pretending that a Jewish state isn't an ethnostate by definition
It isn't. Certainly not in a way that requires ethnic cleansing.
What definition are you using? Are all Arab states ethnostates? What about monoethnic countries [1]?
> Ethnostates are very very bad
Because they arise from ethnic cleansing. Nobody has a problem with Egypt or Finland being monoethnic, and I think it would be incorrect to call them ethnostates.
If Egypt and Finland (and Iceland and Palestine) are ethnostates, then we've broadened the definition to where they seem to be fine.
> it doesn't matter who's a "true" member of the group; it matters only that there is a group
Of course it does. If you can expand the group, you don't have a problem. The very act of nationhood is an exercise in defining groups of people.
One can have a liberal, democratic, Jewish state that isn't an ethnostate. Nothing about Israel's existence requires ethnic cleansing. That's just a weird own goal that argues for it.
> suggest you look up the definition of an ethnostate before trying to argue about it
I’m literally asking for the definition you’re using. Because none of the ones I’m seeing match what you’re saying. And the way you seem to be defining it turns “ethnic cleansing is at the core of every ethnostate” into tautology.
