Could you name a country that would not qualify as an ethnostate by your definition
Yes, easily. Canada. You would be hard pressed to find someone outside of Canada that says they ‘identify as Canadian’ that isn’t a citizen or just trying to conceal their actual citizenship.
I don’t see how merely having an ethnicity or culture as the predominant group in a country would qualify it as an ethnostate unless the government uses it as an excuse to oppress those that are not in that selected group
This is where the fundamental issue is imo. You presuppose oppression as part of your definition and that is not included in what dictionaries define it as. Yes, differing ethnicities are often a source of… ‘conflict’, but that is not necessarily the case and this is what I’m trying to emphasize. There are numerous nations who have an ethnic identity that aren’t oppressive to others as I already listed.
IMO you meant to declare “oppressive regimes” as demanding dismantling which I absolutely agree with, and currently most Theocracies and Ethnostates in the Middle East region qualify.
do I have to have every conceivable instance in mind before I can make that declaration?
No, and I didn’t ask you too. But, I think due to the clear issue with how we are each defining ‘Ethnostate’ you providing one other example aside from Israel is reasonable.
I think you’re conflating things a little bit here…
No, I was showing how you are conflating things with that example. In your breakdown you state that which I exactly agree with: “I would agree that that government should be abolished. That doesn’t mean democracy has failed” but you are saying exactly that when you use ‘Ethnostates’. Israeli government failed so Ethnostates should be dismantled.
In conclusion, there are many justifiably proud ethnicities out there, some of which governments identify as, who aren’t oppressive so we should be careful not to generalize to the point cultural identification as a whole becomes the Bad.