I guess I just found your wording strange. Plenty of people are interested in different cultures. People read Greek and Norse mythology, Japanese or Slavic folklore without even being from those parts of the world. Do you think that the Conjuring or Exorcist are only scary if you’re Christian? Or the Ring is only relatable if you’re Shinto… Or you can only enjoy Thor movies if you’re pagan…?

Why is it only scary for Muslims?

One would think that there would be more than just one lawyer who says that… Oh well… :)

Just because you disagree with a definition, doesn’t mean it’s wrong.

Every country is culturally diverse, but there’s still statistical common denominator. You have big differences in languages, accents, food, culture in the UK and yet 82% are white British. Same goes for Germany, Japan etc. Every country do their demographic analyses differently, but the point is that they all can have major differences within the same ethic group.

So we should either agree to use the same definition or agree that it has no meaning and not use that word at all.

“Ethnostate - noun. a state that is dominated by members of a single ethnic group.” That exactly makes them an Ethnostate. Mandarin and Uyghur re-education camps is authoritarianism.

The 91% Han Chinese sense…

Mainly 5 year terms, but I can see on the list some 6 and 7 year terms as well… https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_term_limits

Not every country has four year terms. Also, elections can be triggered early for various reasons.

Genuine question - what’s your opinion of the Jordanian treatment of Palestinians?

As I thought, you’re not here to debate in good faith with facts. Just spew your version of events and propaganda. Thanks for clarifying.

Are you sure you’re a Marxist? Sound more like an American from the 50s…

Socialism and capitalism are not mutually exclusive.

Capitalism is an economic system where the capital owner holds the means of production and their operation for profit.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but China does have companies that operate globally and are for profit, and some of them are even privately owned.

There are different forms of capitalism. For example: France is mainly welfare capitalism, China is state capitalism (party state capitalism to be more precise) and people would argue that USA is laissez-faire capitalism.

There are also different types of socialism… France for example is a socialist democracy. China is totalitarian socialism.

France is a country with a capitalist mode of production. Markets have nothing to do with the distinction between capitalist and socialist modes of production, the ownership of the means of production and thus also the class in control of the state is the defining characteristic.

Most of the biggest industries in France, from energy to rail, are state owned.

China is socialist. China has home ownership for personal use, but no private land ownership and ever dwindling private ownership of the means of production. Homes for the purpose of living in, ie personal property, are not a means of production, and houses for rent for the purpose of enriching the owner at the expense of the tenant, ie private property, basically don’t exist.

Seems like you live in a dream world. 20% of home owners in China have a second (and more) home/s, and they definitely use it for profit.

Also, leasehold of state property exist all over the globe. It’s not unique to capitalism or socialism or any other ism.

I’m confused… Do you know what the terms that you use even mean?

To get a baseline here… Do you think France is socialist or capitalist?

China has been mixed market economy for decades. You were talking about private property ownership. Are you not aware that China has one of the highest home ownership numbers in the world?

Isn’t China the biggest capitalist country in the world?

I didn’t say it’s a great plan. But it’s better than no plan.

I don’t understand all the down votes. You don’t have to agree with it, it doesn’t even mean that I agree with it… But I just wanted to shine some context to why it’s not ironic to many Jews.

I would like to bring a counter point for you to consider.

When I put all my money in a bank, I have a guaranty from a regulatory body /government that in case of bankruptcy I will still get my money back, even if the bank goes bust.

This is similar for Jews around the world - Israel is an insurance policy. If your local country starts leaning towards fascism and looking for a scapegoat (which is usually Jews), then you’d have the option to go to Israel immediately. Because historically they’ve seen and still see how refugees are being treated and not welcome globally.

I literally wrote a list of countries in my comment…

Let’s see…

…countries with other cultural influences.

No, no you didn’t.

You literally compared Anglo-Saxon countries to “countries with other cultural influences” and then say it’s complex… Pick a lane dude.

Which countries are you talking about? China? Mongolia? South Africa? Emirates? Argentina? I would argue that the “Anglo-Saxon” countries probably have less capital inequality, but it’s definitely a global problem - people with money don’t need to adhere to borders.

Sorry for my ignorance, but I think liberal means something else in my part of the world. Can you please tell me what’s your definition?

Edit: As I thought - you guys mean Neoliberalism. Even in the links below it’s mentioned that there was a split in terms. Language matters! Liberalism - a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights and civil liberties (the opposite in the political spectrum from authoritarianism).

Somehow I don’t think that you’re arguing in good faith, but anyway… There were many pro Palestine protests in Tel Aviv University and up until recently the biggest protests Israel ever had were against the current government. It’s also probably not possible to organise anything when you have to run to a shelter every hour to hide from rockets.

Hezbollah have 15 ministers in parliament and are literally in the caretaker government coalition.