Someone asked a commenter if they're against ethnoreligious states "writ large" as if it's some kind of trap. It's not. It's a bad faith rhetorical move trying to force a binary choice: either endorse Israel's model or admit to some hidden extremism. The actual answer is obvious: ethnoreligious states that ethnically cleanse, maintain apartheid systems, or wage disproportionate wars against captive populations are indefensible. Not because of some abstract principle, but because of what they actually do. This gets framed as a "gotcha" because pointing out Israel's specific practices is treated as beyond the pale in mainstream discourse. So critics get asked to denounce the entire category instead, which lets people dodge the concrete reality of what's happening in Gaza and the West Bank.