Nationalism is often considered immoral because it values the interests of some people over others, rather than being universalist in its circle of concern. For nationalists themselves, the ideology is often defined by such a preference. I agree with the standard liberal critique of this worldview, but I think the universalist/particularist distinction is the weakest point on which to attack it. The bigger problem with nationalism is that it’s usually very bad for the people it claims to speak for and represent, even putting aside the interests of outgroups.
Many observers have been noting the distinction between caring about the “Palestinian cause” and the Palestinian people. As I’ve also pointed out, if you want what’s best for the actual human beings who live in Gaza, you would encourage them to seek a better life elsewhere. But there is relatively little interest in this as a solution, because it would harm the cause of Palestine, which keeps millions of individuals and their families stateless for generations for the sake of a political movement.
This is not a paywall. The rest of this article is available to free subscribers of the newsletter. Just leave your email below to continue reading.
I don't think the result of your poll is "deranged" at all. Would Israeli Jews prefer a country with 40 million people that was 75% Jewish or a country with 100 million people that was 50% Jewish?
Damn, people would prefer to live in a more homogeneous environment regardless of the global repercussions? Thank God we've got Hanania to point out the inconsistencies of basic human desires.