Ethno-nationalism and Universities Australia

A gravely mistaken claim

In denouncing anti-semitism, Universities Australia (the misleadingly named organisation representing university managers) states “All peoples, including Jews, have the right to self-determination.” According to UA, any position opposed to this claim in relation to Israel, represents anti-semitism. But the claim is stated generally, and I want to assess it in this respect.

The stated position here is one of ethnonationalism. Humanity can be divided into “peoples” and each such “people” has the right to self-determination. Implicitly “self-determination” should take the form of a nation-state, defined by ethnicity, religion or some combination of the two. Before proceeding any further, it’s worth mentioning a few places where this position is applicable in one form or another.

• The Kurds are an ethnic group in the Middle East, many of whom who have long aspired to the establishment of a nation state of Kurdistan, encompassing parts of what are currently Iran, Iraq and Turkey.

• Pan-Germanists and Pan-Slavists have historically advocated unitary states for what they define as the German or Slavic people

• The Hindutva (Hindu nationalist) movement in India, broadly supported by the current Modi (BJP) government, is founded on rejection of the secularist beliefs on which India was founded in favour of a view that India should be a Hindu state.

• Pakistan was created on the basis of the converse claim for Muslim-dominated areas of what was previously India

• Islamists and Christianists (including Catholic integralists) similarly believe that adherents of their faith represent a people (Umma or the “Body of Christ”) who are entitled to self-determination in the sense that their beliefs should be enshrined in law.

All ethnonationalist claims, including those listed above, face the problem that not everyone who lives on the land they claim for their group is a member of that group. This invariably leads to conflict and often to bloody and even genocidal conflict.

That’s not to say that ethnonationalist claims should automatically be rejected. In some cases, the best way of reducing conflict is a partition. The inevitable consequence of “population transfer” pushing out those who end up on the wrong side of the border, may be a necessary price to pay for peace.

But there is no reason to accept the broader claim that the world is best divided into “peoples” each with the right to self-determation, including the right to dominate anyone else who lives under their rule.

What then is the alternative? Civic nationalism is based on shared adherence to the values of democracy and freedom, regardless of ethnicity or religion. Anyone who lives in a given country permanently can (and on most views of this kind should) become a citizen with the same constitutional rights as everyone else. That’s much closer to the dominant view of Australian nationalism than the idea that there is an “Australian people” defined by shared descent or religion.

Civic nationalism has plenty of problems, including how to deal with migration and the problems of “First Nations” in states derived from settler colonies. But it has a much better and more peaceful record than ethnonationalism

None of this provides a solution to the tragedy of Israel-Palestine. A democratic state united by civic nationalism, seems impossible, as does any other peaceful outcome at present.

But the position of Universities Australia is that advocating any solution that does not involve the continued existence of Israel as a specifically Jewish state is inherently anti-semitic. This is a claim that cannot be sustained.

Follow me on Bluesky or Mastodon

Read my newsletter