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.
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 So while they specifically no longer represent that separatist movement as directly there are other groups focused on prairie separatism that are a better modern parallel.
But it is tantamount to the destruction of Israel.
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.
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.
Abolishing Jim Crow in the south hardly destroyed the south, despite the gloom and doom of the racists of the time.
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.
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.
They may be. Maybe India and Pakistan could peacefully reünify, too. I'm doubtful. But that matters less than the people there being very much more doubtful.
> No war was fought over the end of Jim Crow
Sorry, fair enough. Ending Jim Crow wasn't a credible threat to the South at that time. The war had already been fought.
> At the moment, probably. That can change
Sure. But sentiment has to shift before one can peacefully move borders.
> Those Knesset members are not asking western intervention to end their ethnostate
I've lost your argument. (Also, ethnostate and nation-state are practically synonymous.)
Not really seeing who in the region would want to support that narrative.
So what democracy are you talking about?
To be fair, we tried to depose them. That tends to make one paranoid.
That doesn't make Hamas's despotism and terrorism our fault. But it's also unfair to use that as an example for why democracy can't work in Gaza.
palestinian authority stopped having elections as well. because hamas will win. latest polling (in link that i sent you in other thread) shows hamas polling at 40+%
Not a majority? Also, can you provide the link? Super curious about polling methods in a war zone.
But PA promised to France/UK/Canada/Australia that Hamas wouldn't be allowed to participate in elections, so...
they have people that interview people in gaza (mentioned on front page)
But taking their numbers at face value, we have 58% of Gaza residents saying Hamas was incorrect to launch its 7 October offensive. (Surprisingly, 59% in the West Bank say it was correct. That's problematic.)
Problematically, too, is the 2/3rds of respondents in Gaza who oppose Hamas disarming. Based on this survey, which again, I have zero ability to judge in terms of accuracy, there would need to be a long civic transition to democratic self-rule while new political parties are given a safe space to form and grow.
how long civic transition given those:
https://www.impact-se.org/wp-content/uploads/UNRWA-Education...
https://www.impact-se.org/wp-content/uploads/Review-of-2023-...
https://www.impact-se.org/wp-content/uploads/Gazas-Education...
If you were to make them illegal, you're basically legally disenfranchising 25% of Israel's population.