Compare some aspect of the thought of a canonical political theorist with a non-western political theorist of your choice. Be sure to explain the grounds of the comparison, your approach to interpretation, and why the comparison is worth making. The canonical political theorist I have chosen for this paper is Aristotle, I am attaching a pdf of a portion of his written work, “Ethics and Politics” to use as a citation source and for content to build an argument. The non-western political theorist I have chosen for this paper is Theodore Herzl, I have attacked 2 pdf’s of his written work “The Jewish State” to use as a citation source and for content to build an argument. If don’t have a pdf of Herzl’s work “The Old New Land” But if you could incorporate a reference to that in the paper that would be great, but it is not a must. The aspect of thought I have chosen to compare and contrast between these two political theorists is the concept of citizenship they both portray in their writing. Aristotle discusses citizenship in describing his ideal citizen in the ideal state, in contrast to Herzl’s views on citizenship as more of a necessity for the survival of the Jewish people to establish residency and citizenship in a sovereign Jewish state. Analyzing Herzl in regards to citizenship can be tricky because he doesn’t often identify citizenship directly as his topic of discussion, but that does not mean he is not discussing the concept of citizenship. Rather, when he says that there needs to be a sovereign state for Jews, he presumably means that being Jewish is a condition of citizenship. If so, what does that imply for being a good citizen? Is it an ethnic designation only? Is it religious? Does it matter? What does he think a good state is? For a state to be a good one, it has to be composed of good citizens. Does he talk about other concepts like duty, responsibility, etc? Those are all ways of talking about citizenship without actually saying “citizen.” Herzl and Aristotle agree on the responsibility correlated with citizenship but Herzl views the political Zionism in correlation to citizenship and statehood as a means to survival rather than a means to a perfect state as Aristotle does. So Herzl focuses more so on the creation of the state as opposed to the ideal citizen. It is perfectly okay to make some stretches in regards to this comparison, that is expected being they are two political thinkers from such different periods in time with such different agendas. Some of Herzl’s views on citizenship are more speculative than concrete and are to be presumed by his thought in other regards of establishing a state for his political zionist agenda. The objective is the examine how both thinkers approach citizenship in their writing with comparing and contrasting their ideologies and making it clear why this comparison is worth making between such different political thinkers.