Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

needypondy t1_j6jsc1d wrote

Neither side wants this because it’d immediately devolve into a dysfunctional sectarian state likely to descend into civil war.


ntbananas t1_j6jt7u6 wrote

Yep. Look no further than Lebanon to see what that dysfunction would look like. Not an inspiring track record


needypondy t1_j6jtu1j wrote

Yeah. Even in this post-civil war period, they’re so dysfunctional they have been going through one of the worst economic crises ever recorded (according to the World Bank). It just doesn’t work.


ntbananas t1_j6juqus wrote

The only counterpoints I can think of in terms of old world (i.e., excluding the Americas since those are predominantly multi-ethnic, immigrant-based societies) successful truly multiethnic states are Switzerland and Belgium. Maybe India as well, though they seem to be sliding into chaos as well these days. There are probably some in Africa as well, though I have to admit I'm not particularly well versed in demographic trends there.

Nonetheless, none of the successful versions are anything close to a theoretical one state solution


thedeathdrive t1_j6nnsr4 wrote

What’s the alternative, though? No resolution, just guaranteed periodic violence?


needypondy t1_j6noqv1 wrote

Probably, yes. Until either side makes concessions that would be politically explosive on their own side, resolution isn’t likely. A one-state solution also certainly will not happen.