Ethnic Jewish atheist calls for abolishing all nation-states

I am Jewish, do not believe in Israel, and call for abolishing all states

What happens when someone defines themselves as ethnically Jewish, atheist, uncircumcised, and opposed to the State of Israel? The conversation becomes a minefield. This occurred when a participant peine with an unusual identity statement: son of barely religious Jewish parents, uncircumcised, no Hebrew knowledge, Catholic for years, now back to atheism or agnosticism. His thesis was not what many expected. He did not defend Israel. Nor did he attack Palestinians. He defended something more uncomfortable: that no nation-state should exist, because all are built with violence and funded by violence.

The discussion quickly moved toward rougher terrain. Some asked why non-Jews are excluded. Others demanded explanations about historical agreements the author himself did not know. Several responded with open distrust of his origins. The result is a portrait of how the conflict is discussed today when someone breaks the expected script.

What exactly does the initial message propose?

The starting point is an identity without a comfortable label. Jewish by ethnicity, not religion. Without circumcision, without Hebrew, having passed through Catholicism and returned to skepticism. This combination disorients those who expect a Jew to automatically defend Israel or an atheist to automatically attack religions. Neither fits here.

The political thesis is more radical than any border debate. All states should disappear, he argues, because they are all oppressive elements. Israel, he says, has done nothing that existing states have not done: constituting itself through violence and funding itself through violence. The logical consequence, according to his proposal, is that the problem is not which state exists, but the existence of the state itself as a form of organization.

Regarding Gaza, his position also breaks the expected mold. He considers that Hamas must be eliminated, but not primarily for the damage it causes Israelis, but because it keeps the population of Gaza in a situation he describes as a concentration camp. It is a formulation that fits neither the official Israeli narrative nor that of Hamas supporters.

Distrust towards the origin of the message

Much of the response did not address the core issue. They focused on who said it. It was questioned whether a Jew can be believed, why non-Jews are excluded, and it was claimed that certain teachings allow lying to those outside the group. It is a known pattern: when someone breaks the identity script, they are demanded a purity that no one asks of those defending the opposite position.

The author himself responded with dry irony. Which teachings? I don't believe in Santa Claus, he replied when attributed religious beliefs he does not profess. And added that, at least, he is no longer Catholic. The response did not calm tempers.

There were also those who requested context on specific historical agreements. The author admitted not knowing one of them and asked for explanations. He did not get them. The conversation continued along other lines.

The shift towards ancient history and the Phoenicians

In the final part, the discussion veered into unexpected territory. One participant stated he needed a video by Pedro Bustamante to realize that certain ancient peoples were the same, and from there everything clicked for him. He mentioned readings of Herodotus, Diodorus Siculus, Strabo, Tacitus, and Pliny. Another replied that Carthage won the war. A third added that survivors of the siege of Carthage were sold as slaves.

The jump from Gaza to Carthage is not accidental. It is the symptom of a conversation that, when it finds no exit in the present, takes refuge in antiquity to seek culprits or explanations. Everything clicked for me in less than a second, one wrote. The phrase well summarizes the mechanism: the sudden revelation that orders chaos.

What remains of all this?

The initial message proposed a coherent position: ethnic Jew, atheist, anti-Zionist by principle of anti-statism. The responses, largely, did not discuss that coherence. They discussed the identity of the person formulating it. It is the old problem of the messenger.

A question remains unanswered: if all states are oppressors, what is the alternative? The author does not offer one. He says he attempted suicide years ago and ended up alive, with permanent aftereffects. Because it is very difficult not to err, he wrote. It is not a political answer. It is a human one. And perhaps that is why no one knew what to reply.