> 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.
> 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.
> They were wrong, just as the people of Israel would be wrong.
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.)
The war for a single state is already happening mind you, and westerners are already involved and influential in it. i disagree that there is now an option to decide now that we dont want to draw borders, only whether we're satisfied with the new borders or not.
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.
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.
