6 ms·
Just to be fair, Israel itself is considered illegitimate by those parties. I doubt most democracies would let parties that are staunchly anti-state run, but Is
by flyinglizard 1y ago
Just to be fair, Israel itself is considered illegitimate by those parties. I doubt most democracies would let parties that are staunchly anti-state run, but Israel, for some reason, does.
- monocasa 1y agoHadash is not an anti-state party. For instance it explicitly supports a two state solution.
- flyinglizard 1y agoHadash is a communist party, first and foremost. But the Arab parties - Balad, Raam, Taal - they are advocating for Palestinian "right of return" and turning Israel into a bi-national state, therefore ending what we know as Israel today.
- monocasa 1y agoBeing against Israel's status as an ethnostate is hardly "anti-state".
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago> Being against Israel's status as an ethnostate is hardly "anti-state" But it is tantamount to the destruction of Israel.
- TimorousBestie 1y agoHow so? There are so many multinational states in the world that manage to exist, somehow.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago> there are so many multinational states in the world that manage to exist Not many with that sort of history. It's barely working in the EU, and that's because America took away the toys for a while.
- TimorousBestie 1y agoYou don’t seem to be a particularly reliable narrator of history in this thread, so I’ll take your uncited assertions with a grain of salt.
- JumpCrisscross 1y agoNot a real argument, but I don't think I can come up with a real argument for your case, so fair enough. Show me a single case where previously-warring nations peacefully unified (i.e. not through conquest or subjugation)? Poland-Lithuania and England-Scotland are the only two I can think of. Because the counterexample--multiethnic nations that split along national-identity lines--is far more frequent since the age of conquest. Former Yugoslavia. Pre-Partition India. Sudan. Ethiopia. Algeria. Multiethnicisim is hard. Where it works, it happened through immigration. Combining previously-warring nations under one roof is basically just assisted civil war.
- cyberax 1y agoMostly the ones where multinationality has been reduced to a different set of cuisines. If you look around the Middle East region, then every multiethnic state there has had civil wars recently.
- monocasa 1y agoThat's absurd. It would be a major change, but hardly in the way that could be described as the destruction of the state. Abolishing Jim Crow in the south hardly destroyed the south, despite the gloom and doom of the racists of the time.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago> hardly in the way that could be described as the destruction of the state It would be a destruction of the nation-state of Israel as a state for the Israeli, predeominantly Jewish, nation. > Abolishing Jim Crow in the south hardly destroyed the south It certainly felt that way to them! Strongly enough that they fought a war over it. (EDIT: Nobody went to war over Jim Crow. They did over slavery. Jim Crow was basically an attempt to regain part of what was lost in the war. Put another way, even a war--alone--is not enough.) That's the point. The single-state solution, practically, would require a war. I know we pulled out of Afghanistan. But I thought we'd have a bigger gap before another group of Westerners decided they like drawing borders in the Middle East, and that anyone who disagrees with them--including the people on the ground--should be violently forced to comply.
- monocasa 1y ago> It would be a destruction of the nation of Israel as the people of Israel see it. Just like the people in my home states of Georgia, Florida, and Tennessee thought that ending Jim Crow would destroy them. They were wrong, just as the people of Israel would be wrong. > It certainly felt that way to them! Strongly enough that they fought a war over it. No war was fought over the end of Jim Crow. > That's the point. The single-state solution, practically, would require a war. I know we pulled out of Afghanistan. At the moment, probably. That can change. > But I thought we'd have a bigger gap before another group of Westerners decided they like drawing borders in the Middle East, and that anyone who disagrees with them--including the people on the ground--should be violently forced to comply. Those Knesset members are not asking western intervention to end their ethnostate.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
- fatbird 1y ago"Israel should be different" is not the same as "Israel shouldn't exist". Calling them anti-state is nonsense.
- flyinglizard 1y agoA bi-national state will differ in anthem, in symbols, in government, in military, in beliefs and in values. What of Israel would remain?
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- wredcoll 1y agoThe same part of israel that is similar to the one from 2000 years ago.
- lern_too_spel 1y agoA democracy. A government supported by the people it governs is the primary factor in determining whether a state is legitimate.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago> A government supported by the people it governs is the primary factor in determining whether a state is legitimate Not really seeing who in the region would want to support that narrative.
- 8note 1y agothe new syrian government is trying to sell that narrative. see this recent conversation at the CFR: https://youtu.be/-CGM6aSontQ?si=CzIWJuZiCb7XRXL- https://youtu.be/-CGM6aSontQ?si=CzIWJuZiCb7XRXL-
- flyinglizard 1y agoIt’s borderline bigoted to force your values onto a completely different population that’s Islamist, tribal and radicalized. After Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza people thought it would be a good idea to hold elections there. Hamas, the Palestinian equivalent of ISIS, won. There haven’t been elections since. In the West Bank, no PA elections since 2005 because the PLO feared Hamas would win there too. So what democracy are you talking about?
- zelphirkalt 1y agoSeeing that Israel has done very little good around itself ever, maybe changing the character of it would be a good thing. It's not working well.
- fakedang 1y agoThey are not parties considering Israel illegitimate nor are they calling for the destruction of Israel. They are parties calling for a two-state solution, and consider the globally-recognized-as-illegal settlements as illegitimate i.e. they call the ever expanding borders of Israel as illegitimate. If you were to make them illegal, you're basically legally disenfranchising 25% of Israel's population.
- fatbird 1y agoCanada has a federal party since 1991, the Bloc Québécois, "devoted to Quebecois nationalism, social democracy, and the promotion of Quebecois sovereignty."[0] They're explicitly separatist by policy. Quebec's last attempt at attaining sovereignty was a provincial referendum in 1995 that lost by 0.5%. Had it succeeded, the provincial gov't was prepared to declare full independence the next day. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloc_Qu%C3%A9b%C3%A9cois https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloc_Qu%C3%A9b%C3%A9cois
- munk-a 1y agoAs a Canadian I'd also say that having such a party is a huge boon to the country. Separatists are going to separatist - your choice, as a nation, is whether to allow them to organize and have their voices heard within the system of politics or whether to force them to resort to violence and underground organization. Those underground separatist groups will always exist but giving formal political representation to the desire for separation (even if it isn't granted) can help defuse extremism and provide better methods for airing grievances. The modern BQ is much more tame than the BQ of thirty years prior - they've mainly morphed into a party focused on franophone rights within Canada and the maintenance of QC labor rights. So while they specifically no longer represent that separatist movement as directly there are other groups focused on prairie separatism that are a better modern parallel.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- jondea 1y agoDo any of the Scottish National Party, Plaid Cymru or Sinn Féin count? I have no doubt there are similar elsewhere...