Skip to main content

View Diary: Agonistic Politics: Why One State Is Best (137 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I'm sorry you're uninterested in (0+ / 0-)

    a civil conversation.

    Al Gore should be president.

    by another American on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 06:19:07 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  The diary says (0+ / 0-)

      this:

      A central idea of agonistic politics is that for enemies to become adversaries, they must agree on something.  Dividing Palestinians and Israelis into separate states guarantees they will agree on nothing.

      Bringing them together into a single state, however, opens the possibility they could agree on the defense of that state.  They might agree on nothing else, but you could win both sides over to a common and joint sense of loyalty to that nation-state.

      And then it quotes ben Jelloun to say this:

      Such a republican multinational state needs no common nationality to assert itself on democratic grounds. All it needs is a unanimously acknowledged political arena. It need not suppose nationhood or communal belonging as the basis for the solidarity and trust needed to sustain its (agonistic) democratic rule, but only the "community" of agonists; of citizens who identify with a multilevel political arena -- internal, communal, then inter-communal or domestic national, then inter-national.

      I'd say the terms were sufficiently well-defined in the diary.  That you bring them up here says to me you are either a) misreading the diary or b) being intentionally obtuse.

      Either way, I don't see the point of continuing the conversation with someone who either has no interest in or is incapable of a real dialogue.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site