[ethbr1]

> Why not just disenfranchise and/or murder any non-French person within the borders of the French people's native land?

Historically?

Because post-revolutionary France has been a militantly-secular state.

And a decent counter-example on why conflating a state with a specific ethno-religious identity is a terrible idea.

[Adverblessly]

I still don't follow your logic, I can't find a more charitable interpretation then you just saying that Jews are inherently murderous and the French are inherently not.

Somewhat ironic as currently the average French person is probably safer in Tel Aviv than the average Jew is in Paris.

[ethbr1]

You said "Being antizionism is antisemitism because it negates the right to self-determination of the Jewish people."

To which I pointed out that unlimited rights to self-determination include justifying genocide.

To which you rebutted that other countries have self-determination and avoid genocide.

To which I rebutted that those other states aren't founded on ethno-religious identities.

[Adverblessly]

So here is my understanding of your point, feel free to correct it in a clearer statement, since your point still seems incomprehensible to me.

You are saying that denying the rights of Jews to self determination in their native land is not antisemitic, because Jewish identity is tied into both an ethnicity and a religion, making Jews inherent murderers and thus undeserving of a state. This is as opposed to say the French or German people, whose identity is mostly ethnic, who have a long history of peace, devoid of genocide, murder and disenfranchisement.

[ethbr1]

Maybe you're not saying what you mean.

What limits do you place on "self determination", as you define it?

And I'd point out that modern France and Germany are much less religious and more religiously diverse than Israel. (Even including Israeli Muslims)

But yes, historically states with high religiosity and state-entwined religions tend to be murderous: it's always a good reason for a just war.