Email to a Pro-Israel Friend

I received an email from one of my pro-Israel friends explaining Israel’s point of view, listing key historical points that many of us have now become familiar with. She wrote it in response to some essays I had written on this conflict. Through this email exchange, she helped me refine my perspective, and I’d like to share it here. I’m going to edit the emails because they were written rather hastily, so this isn’t meant to be some sort of historical archive or record; it’s simply meant to convey my points in an email format. I also will not include her emails because I’m only interested in sharing my perspective prompted by her responses. Here it is:

Nice to hear from you. So, yes, the Israel/Hamas conflict. It’s a hot topic. In fact, it’s so explosive that it’s nearly impossible to find anyone willing to discuss it civilly. I see relationships breaking apart over it.

It’s not that your points are invalid, and I’m sure your opponents will also have a bottomless list of grievances, too. If it were possible to prove one side right and the other side wrong in absolute terms, the conflict would have ended many decades ago. Therefore, I don’t find historical arguments particularly productive, nor am I interested in passing judgment on past actions of Israelis and Palestinians. I’m interested in a solution moving forward. Let’s say, for the sake of the argument, that Israel has done nothing wrong. My question is: What now? How do we move forward? Given that Israel keeps expanding slowly, what happens to the Palestinians?

In my view, the main problem moving forward will be Israel’s constitution, which explicitly defines itself as an ethnostate. Without that, Israel might theoretically annex all Palestinian territories, granting Palestinians Israeli citizenship and equal rights. But Israel’s constitution doesn’t allow for this.

Imagine a hypothetical scenario in Manhattan where a group of Chinese residents proposes that Chinatown should be exclusively for Asians to prevent gentrification and displacement. Given that Asians are a marginalized group, many might support this idea. Now, imagine that as Asians become more economically successful, Chinatown expands into Nolita, Soho, and Tribeca, displacing current non-Asian residents. Then, suppose that Asians eventually become more prosperous than other groups and are able to buy out new neighborhoods to expand even further.

In this scenario, the problem is the use of ethnicity as a boundary. Without it, this would be a typical, albeit problematic, gentrification issue. Non-Asians might later become successful and move into the area. But in a region where non-Asians once lived, should they be pushed out and barred from returning simply because of ethnicity?

In other words, being a marginalized group does not justify using race or ethnicity as a basis for segregation. Sooner or later, such divisions lead to serious conflicts. It’s inevitable. Race or ethnicity should not determine territorial access or ownership, at least not in civilized societies.

Israel is the only ethnostate in the world where the self-determination of a specific ethnicity is explicitly declared in the constitution. A few others come close but not as explicit. Imagine if the world were full of countries like that, say, African nations whose stated goal is to maintain their black majority or China formally declaring the self-determination of Han Chinese people. Germany wanted to do this but, fortunately, failed.

It’s true that there are Arabs in Israel, but they are constitutionally prohibited from becoming the majority, so in that sense, they do not have equal rights. Even if the US formally declared itself as a state that maintains the white majority, I’m sure many people of color will remain here as minorities. Many will likely leave even if the whites welcome them to stay, as long as they can accept that they are not allowed to be the majority. Many won’t accept that. Would you feel good about moving to a country where the constitution formally states that Jews are not allowed to be the majority? That would be a significant reason many Palestinians wouldn’t want to join Israel. Do we want to see this kind of ethnostate proliferate globally, where societies self-segregate based on inherent factors beyond individual control?

In America, even after the Civil War, equality for Black Americans and women remained largely theoretical, as discrimination persisted in practice. So, imagine having a constitution that explicitly favors a certain ethnic group; the impact it would have on the people who do not belong to that group would be significant.

Israel’s reluctance to annex Gaza or the West Bank seems driven less by disinterest in the land than by a desire to limit growth in the Arab population. They do not want the people that come with the land. So, the only way to get the land without the people is to slowly expand and displace the Arab population, like how black people are getting pushed out of Harlem.

Yes, Israel has flourished as a modern society and has become powerful. It is the most technologically advanced state in the region. This, to me, exemplifies the issue with the concept of an ethnostate. When a marginalized or oppressed group seeks a state based on ethnicity, the global majority may sympathize. But problems arise when such a state grows powerful in the future.

When my daughter was in 5th grade, her teacher encouraged her students to form racial “affinity groups.” The only kids who were not allowed to form them were white kids. I was outraged because they did not ask the parents for permission. I would have vehemently opposed it. Based on the mantra of “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable,” it is tempting to do such a thing, but we should not fight racism with racism. In the long run, it will backfire and justify the treatment of others based on race.

This is my problem with Israel. The only civilized solution I can think of is for Israel to remove its ethnicity-based constitution and allow Palestinians to become citizens of the combined state. Israel will not allow a two-state solution, as you suggest. Self-determination of Palestinians in Gaza (and possibly in the West Bank) would mean that they are free to build an army, just like any other nation. Israel won’t allow that. So, Israel needs to end its status as an ethnostate and evolve to a true democracy where people are not treated differently by race or ethnicity.

My discussions on this topic with pro-Israel people always end in them becoming angry at me and leaving the discussion. Please note that I’m actually not talking about Israel or Jews specifically. I am opposed to anyone or any country forming an ethnostate, so my argument applies to everyone, not just Israelis, which is why I do not emphasize the history of the region or Jewish culture.

Yes, it applies to Japan, too, the country of my birth. Japan is essentially an ethnostate, but at least it is not in their constitution. Given how their economy has stagnated for decades and is experiencing severe labor shortages because of the population decline and aging, they now face an existential crisis that requires them to be more diverse. I think it’s a step in the right direction. At this stage, if they formally declared Japan as an ethnostate in their constitution, it would be a tragic mistake for the country. Japan should indeed be ashamed of its history as a nation that projected its imperialist nationalism to its neighbors. I agree with you that Japan needs to confront that shameful history. It would be a huge mistake for them to introduce any policies that prioritize Japanese ethnicity. In this manner, my critique does not apply only to Israel. It applies to all nations.

My argument’s moral foundation is not tied to any specific culture or history. Making exceptions just because of past suffering would be a mistake. Some people claim that black people can never be racist, but this is demonstrably absurd. Everyone harbors biases to varying degrees. Much of what we call “institutional racism” arises from our unrecognized personal biases. Not many Americans would proudly call themselves “racist.” We need to continue to examine ourselves and learn from each other.

However, please note that none of my arguments are meant to deny the existence of Israel. My only objection is its formal declaration as an ethnostate, and I would object if any country made such a formal declaration.

You are right that you likely know far more than I do about the history of Israel and the Jewish people and religion. I can certainly learn more, but how would my deeper understanding change my argument against ethnostates? The only possibility is that I would feel so sympathetic for Jews that I would grant an exception for Israel. But, I would not condone black people to be racist regardless of how sympathetic I feel for them. So, I do not think we should allow exceptions based on our feelings because we cannot legislate feelings or define them as a rule of law. Whose feelings, then, should reign supreme? We cannot have a civilized society ruled by someone’s feelings. Any country wishing to become an ethnostate would justify it by arguing that others just don’t understand enough about them. Such arguments would lead nowhere.

So, again, I’d like to emphasize that my criticism is not only directed at Israel or Jewish people. Legal and constitutional treatments of people, regardless of intention, should not be based on race or ethnicity, period. That is my argument.

From the perspective of someone seeking peace between Israelis and Palestinians, mutual vilification is counterproductive, only driving us further from resolution. Millions of people cannot all be inherently evil. As a first step, we need to move beyond portraying the other side as a villain. Revisiting historical grievances, no matter how grave the perceived injustices, does not bring us closer to progress. If we are unwilling to work toward a solution, the alternative risks leading to a devastating outcome for one side or the other. Vilification only solidifies that tragic path.

Some years ago, a self-proclaimed “white nationalist” reached out to me via email, and we engaged in a dialogue about the ideology. I found it surprising to learn that the movement does not necessarily stem from a belief in white superiority. While it differs from white supremacy, the distinction between the two can be ambiguous. I’m sure some fall between the two, and it’s a spectrum, but his point was that not all of them are supremacists. He was deeply concerned about the fate of white people, and it’s not a mere paranoia—the data back that up.

The global population of individuals identifying as white has been declining in both absolute numbers and as a proportion of the total population in several countries. According to the Pew Research Center, in the United States, the non-Hispanic white population has been decreasing in both percentage and absolute terms. Between 2010 and 2020, this group declined by about 5.1 million people, marking a 3% decrease. That is indeed a significant decline in a decade.

One of the most prominent white nationalists is Jared Taylor, who was born and raised in Japan and speaks fluent Japanese. I would imagine that he faced many challenges being the only white boy in school, and his stance as a white nationalist likely stems from this experience. However, he has nothing against Japanese people, and in some ways, Japan’s ethnic homogeneity likely inspired the idea of white nationalism, as he witnessed the advantages of racial homogeneity.

There are also some right-wing factions of Japanese who believe Japan should maintain racial purity. They don’t even allow Koreans or Chinese. This, too, is not all based on their sense of superiority. They see themselves as a victim, particularly of Western interference and domination.

Having grown up in Japan, I can appreciate the benefits of racial homogeneity, particularly in fostering societal safety and efficiency. However, this same homogeneity may also limit creativity and dynamism in certain contexts.

Many who believe in the racial/ethnic purity of a nation simply want to live among others of the same race/ethnicity. Logic can’t tell us that they are wrong. In that sense, I cannot criticize your position. It all comes down to our perceptions of the world.

Some of my Jewish friends are vehemently against Zionism, so not all Jews share your pessimistic outlook, but there is no way to prove one side to be wrong. By the same token, I cannot say white nationalists are wrong, either. The threat they perceive cannot be determined as delusional because the data aligns with it. Likewise, the existence of antisemitic violence backs up your perception, too.

The concept of “diversity” was largely championed by white people in the West, which has led to a greater embrace of multiculturalism in these societies compared to the relative homogeneity of much of the world. My personal belief is that, at this point in human history, we have no choice but to embrace the Western ideology of diversity.

When we self-segregate by race/ethnicity, we become psychologically primed to believe that we are superior to the other groups. Many social experiments have proven this to be true. In one experiment, researchers randomly selected half of elementary school kids to wear a red shirt and the other half blue. Over time, they self-segregated and began to believe that their own group was superior to the other. In another experiment, the tension between the two groups escalated into violence.

In an increasingly interconnected world, racial or ethnic self-segregation seems impractical and counterproductive. I believe the only way forward is to embrace diversity, as self-segregation risks reversing progress in human development. That said, I recognize that these perspectives are subjective, and we may ultimately have to agree to disagree.