4 ms·

Being 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 ago
  How 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 ago
      You 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 ago
        Not 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 ago
    Mostly 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 ago
  That'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

> Being against Israel's status as an ethnostate is hardly "anti-state" But it is tantamount to the destruction of Israel.

TimorousBestie 1y ago
How 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 ago
    You 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 ago
      Not 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 ago
  Mostly 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 ago
That'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