Israel

[Shredderbeam]

Does it have a right to exist?

 

Does it have a right to exist?

The thing about that whole region is that everyone has their own religion and they're all fighting, all the time. If the religions could cooperatively exist, this wouldn't even be a question. Palestinians have lived in the region for over 2000 years, but the Jewish people have as well. It's not really about rights because both sides have equal right, but both sides also hate each other and won't play nice. Then there's also the perspective that Israel's existence is just the US extending a more modern colonialist arm into the Middle East and we all know that colonialism is a no-no.

If I had to give a single, simple answer to that question I'd probably say "N/A" lol.

 

[Shredderbeam]

The thing about that whole region is that everyone has their own religion and they're all fighting, all the time. If the religions could cooperatively exist, this wouldn't even be a question. Palestinians have lived in the region for over 2000 years, but the Jewish people have as well. It's not really about rights because both sides have equal right, but both sides also hate each other and won't play nice. Then there's also the perspective that Israel's existence is just the US extending a more modern colonialist arm into the Middle East and we all know that colonialism is a no-no.

If I had to give a single, simple answer to that question I'd probably say "N/A" lol.

I'm not talking about religion, I'm talking about the recent creation of the state of Israel in 1948, and specifically their "soft" ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians.

 

[malakadang]

Do other countries have the "right" to exist? If so, on what basis do you argue that they do?

Say Australia, the UK, or the US?

 

[Tanged]

What you are conflating is religion and species . Majority of the people in the middle east belong to the same species regardless of what they call themselves some browner then others at the end of the day they are all human migrants . No man or fish has any unquestionable right to land but whoever controls it can do whatever they please.

Jews have the ability to cleanse Palestinians and Palestinians have the ability to cleanse Jews.
No one has in a entitlement to anything in existence. The term "right" is used by provide pseudo choice.
For example you are free to kill whoever you want but society will punish you. If Palestine cant defend itself that is the fault of Palestine and they will be conquered if they allow it. That is how the world works.

so my response would be N/A.

 

[OrangeCounty]

Whether it has a right to exist or not, they've got nukes and aren't going anywhere soon. I think the holocaust was kind of the last straw for Jews. They pretty much said fuck it after they almost got annihilated. Palestine can cry all day long, the Jews have been hardened by unbelievable atrocities- one after another after another.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Do other countries have the "right" to exist? If so, on what basis do you argue that they do?

Say Australia, the UK, or the US?

Awesome question, as always. I've only been back at this website for 6 months (3 of which I was incapacitated), but you're one of the contributors whose posts I always look forward to!

I believe that "rights" are an abstract human invention, so what a man says to be a right, may tomorrow be laughable. However, in terms of a "right to exist" as it affects countries, I tend to look at it as such: "If you're stealing land from others, you don't have a right to be there." In that sense, the U.S. wouldn't have a right to exist. Even if it did, massive, MASSIVE reparations would have to be made to the native Americans, beyond shitty reservations and the right to have casinos.

To put it as simply as possible, in my beliefs, a country has a right to exist when its people occupies new, virgin, territory. If you steal land and force the natives out/commit genocide, you don't have a moral right.

What you are conflating is religion and species . Majority of the people in the middle east belong to the same species regardless of what they call themselves some browner then others at the end of the day they are all human migrants . No man or fish has any unquestionable right to land but whoever controls it can do whatever they please.

Well first of all, I must say (and it may seem pedantic) that all humans alive today are one species.

Second, I agree that rights are a human abstraction. However, in this thread, I'm debating whether Israel may "morally" do what it does. So, I suppose the real trial is about morals.

Jews have the ability to cleanse Palestinians and Palestinians have the ability to cleanse Jews.
No one has in a entitlement to anything in existence. The term "right" is used by provide pseudo choice.
For example you are free to kill whoever you want but society will punish you. If Palestine cant defend itself that is the fault of Palestine and they will be conquered if they allow it. That is how the world works.

so my response would be N/A.

I don't know what country you live in, but imagine that a country with a more powerful military starts attacking your country. Imagine that you're being firebombed from 50,000 feet (I don't know how high bombers actually fly, lol). Would you make the same argument, that your country "deserves" such tragedy since it cannot defend itself?

Whether it has a right to exist or not, they've got nukes and aren't going anywhere soon. I think the holocaust was kind of the last straw for Jews. They pretty much said fuck it after they almost got annihilated. Palestine can cry all day long, the Jews have been hardened by unbelievable atrocities- one after another after another.

I agree that they have been through a lot of atrocities, and based on recent history, they will continue to survive, but that's not really what's being discussed here.

 

[OrangeCounty]

Awesome question, as always. I've only been back at this website for 6 months (3 of which I was incapacitated), but you're one of the contributors whose posts I always look forward to!

I believe that "rights" are an abstract human invention, so what a man says to be a right, may tomorrow be laughable. However, in terms of a "right to exist" as it affects countries, I tend to look at it as such: "If you're stealing land from others, you don't have a right to be there." In that sense, the U.S. wouldn't have a right to exist. Even if it did, massive, MASSIVE reparations would have to be made to the native Americans, beyond shitty reservations and the right to have casinos.

To put it as simply as possible, in my beliefs, a country has a right to exist when its people occupies new, virgin, territory. If you steal land and force the natives out/commit genocide, you don't have a moral right.



Well first of all, I must say (and it may seem pedantic) that all humans alive today are one species.

Second, I agree that rights are a human abstraction. However, in this thread, I'm debating whether Israel may "morally" do what it does. So, I suppose the real trial is about morals.



I don't know what country you live in, but imagine that a country with a more powerful military starts attacking your country. Imagine that you're being firebombed from 50,000 feet (I don't know how high bombers actually fly, lol). Would you make the same argument, that your country "deserves" such tragedy since it cannot defend itself?



I agree that they have been through a lot of atrocities, and based on recent history, they will continue to survive, but that's not really what's being discussed here.

LOL. You ask if they have a right to exist; in their eyes, they do. In the United State's eyes, they do.

So yes. It is relevant. Derp

 

[malakadang]

Awesome question, as always. I've only been back at this website for 6 months (3 of which I was incapacitated), but you're one of the contributors whose posts I always look forward to!

Thank you for the compliment!

I believe that "rights" are an abstract human invention, so what a man says to be a right, may tomorrow be laughable. However, in terms of a "right to exist" as it affects countries, I tend to look at it as such: "If you're stealing land from others, you don't have a right to be there." In that sense, the U.S. wouldn't have a right to exist. Even if it did, massive, MASSIVE reparations would have to be made to the native Americans, beyond shitty reservations and the right to have casinos.

To put it as simply as possible, in my beliefs, a country has a right to exist when its people occupies new, virgin, territory. If you steal land and force the natives out/commit genocide, you don't have a moral right.

So, if I'm correct, a country has a right to exist when its government has a 'right' to own the land it purports to 'exist' on? Let's take a step back and analyze what the word 'right' itself means though.

If I have a right to own a certain bit of land, does this mean you have a duty to abstain from interfering with the exercise of my right to own this certain bit of land? In other words, if I have a 'right' to own the land my house sits on, and you say: 'that's cool, I'll build my swimming pool on that bit of land' (that you own), then this 'right' is a bit meaningless no? Rights, at least under a Hohfeldian view correlate with duties which others owe to us.

If we accept this tool, let's reanalyze the situation. If Israel has a right to own the land it purports to own, then does this mean the broader international community has a duty to abstain from interfering with Israel's exercise of its right to own the land? With ownership comes an embedded right to exclude, so naturally Israel would have the right to exclude those natural citizens from the land it now owns by right.

I suspect you will say that Israel does not have a 'right' to own the land, and so no correlative duties arise, in which case, the next question arises: what does Israel have? What comments do you have about the above?

As to your reparations point, do you think this is (a) practical, and (b) justifiable? First off, the atrocities and genocide were committed against the ancestors of those whom you seek to repair; you clearly cannot make reparations to the ancestors themselves! By what mechanism do you argue that we inherit the rights of our ancestors? So, using the term 'right' loosely, if the ancestors are owed a right to reparation, why does it follow that their offspring inherit the right, and to what extent do they inherit the right? Do they inherit duties as well?

If we look at history, war has plagued all lands. You may speak of virgin land, but which land is truly virgin? Those ancestors themselves may have committed atrocities against the generation preceding them. How/where do you draw the line? Also, who are reparations owed to? Do we skip the middle party who also committed atrocities?

 

[Tanged]

"I don't know what country you live in, but imagine that a country with a more powerful military starts attacking your country. Imagine that you're being firebombed from 50,000 feet (I don't know how high bombers actually fly, lol). Would you make the same argument, that your country "deserves" such tragedy since it cannot defend itself?"

Such is nature. we all conquered each other everyone must lose eventually. Also I have been thru many natural disasters including Tsunamis and Hurricanes and at one point we all accepted we might die.

 

[tMoon]

If we're referring to the nation-state itself, I would likely lean towards a no based off its arbitrary creation. As in, the establishment of Israel follows western powers dividing territories and allocating a geographical (however historic) location to the Jews with very little consideration to surrounding populous. I am not truly affirmed to this answer as the establishment of Israel somewhat mirrors that of many other states divided by the UN or western powers; however, there's a slight caveat of Israel being declared the Jewish state and presiding over land deemed to be holy by a variety of religions. It is worth noting that in other states with arbitrary borders (looking at Africa), there is much strife within states themselves due to the many nations that lie within a singular state.

@Shredderbeam you may enjoy a paper called “Necropolitics” by Achille Mbembe. Much of his paper focuses on Israeli-Palestinian relations and particularly Israel's use of death as a form of power.

 

[OrangeCounty]

Thank you for the compliment!

So, if I'm correct, a country has a right to exist when its government has a 'right' to own the land it purports to 'exist' on? Let's take a step back and analyze what the word 'right' itself means though.

If I have a right to own a certain bit of land, does this mean you have a duty to abstain from interfering with the exercise of my right to own this certain bit of land? In other words, if I have a 'right' to own the land my house sits on, and you say: 'that's cool, I'll build my swimming pool on that bit of land' (that you own), then this 'right' is a bit meaningless no? Rights, at least under a Hohfeldian view correlate with duties which others owe to us.

If we accept this tool, let's reanalyze the situation. If Israel has a right to own the land it purports to own, then does this mean the broader international community has a duty to abstain from interfering with Israel's exercise of its right to own the land? With ownership comes an embedded right to exclude, so naturally Israel would have the right to exclude those natural citizens from the land it now owns by right.

I suspect you will say that Israel does not have a 'right' to own the land, and so no correlative duties arise, in which case, the next question arises: what does Israel have? What comments do you have about the above?

As to your reparations point, do you think this is (a) practical, and (b) justifiable? First off, the atrocities and genocide were committed against the ancestors of those whom you seek to repair; you clearly cannot make reparations to the ancestors themselves! By what mechanism do you argue that we inherit the rights of our ancestors? So, using the term 'right' loosely, if the ancestors are owed a right to reparation, why does it follow that their offspring inherit the right, and to what extent do they inherit the right? Do they inherit duties as well?

If we look at history, war has plagued all lands. You may speak of virgin land, but which land is truly virgin? Those ancestors themselves may have committed atrocities against the generation preceding them. How/where do you draw the line? Also, who are reparations owed to? Do we skip the middle party who also committed atrocities?

Well, if you take that route you're arguing against the idea of reparations as a whole. Israel was founded in a time of extreme turmoil, genocide and atrocity. Taking that into account, I would say, yes; Israel as the right to exist as a PEACEFUL state that can defend itself.

I don't think they have the right to expand into the West Bank and swallow up territory left and right.

 

[malakadang]

Well, if you take that route you're arguing against the idea of reparations as a whole.

Not really. If you blow up my house, I have a legal right to reparations from the Courts. I would also add that even if you accept that someone has no right to reparations, it does not automatically follow that we ought not help them. Many people do not have a right to my time, money, or assistance, yet I help them anyway (not because I necessarily ought to, but only to demonstrate that the absence of a positive right is not the end-all).

Attempting to enforce your ideology onto those who disagree with you by force, is a method born from the same seed as that which gives birth to genocide. Same seed, different plant.

 

[OrangeCounty]

Not really. If you blow up my house, I have a legal right to reparations from the Courts. I would also add that even if you accept that someone has no right to reparations, it does not automatically follow that we ought not help them. Many people do not have a right to my time, money, or assistance, yet I help them anyway (not because I necessarily ought to, but only to demonstrate that the absence of a positive right is not the end-all).

Attempting to enforce your ideology onto those who disagree with you by force, is a method born from the same seed as that which gives birth to genocide. Same seed, different plant.

In what way does Israel attempt to force their beliefs on others? Their religion is a Zionist one and not just anyone can become Jewish.

 

[Bulletproof]

i believe Israel has the right to exist indeed, for all they have been through and I believe they should be able to defend themselves if they so chose to, if not then the subject about them doesnt matter, im still an American thats all that matters hehe

 

[malakadang]

In what way does Israel attempt to force their beliefs on others? Their religion is a Zionist one and not just anyone can become Jewish.

I wasn't talking about Israel, I was talking about unjustified reparations.

 

[OrangeCounty]

I wasn't talking about Israel, I was talking about unjustified reparations.

Awwwww. Gotcha. Well I still think that they have the right to exist as a nation-state. They just need to stop expanding their territory. They're doing exactly what Hitler did to kickoff WWII when he claimed the Sudetenland

 

[Spyder69]

If we're referring to the nation-state itself, I would likely lean towards a no based off its arbitrary creation. As in, the establishment of Israel follows western powers dividing territories and allocating a geographical (however historic) location to the Jews with very little consideration to surrounding populous. I am not truly affirmed to this answer as the establishment of Israel somewhat mirrors that of many other states divided by the UN or western powers; however, there's a slight caveat of Israel being declared the Jewish state and presiding over land deemed to be holy by a variety of religions. It is worth noting that in other states with arbitrary borders (looking at Africa), there is much strife within states themselves due to the many nations that lie within a

Going to so thoroughly enjoy utterly demolishing you again.

Israel is/was an ancient kingdom, the legitimacy of its existence extends far beyond that of any Arab/Muslim state operating under the borrowed regional name "Palestine."

For millennia the Jews were looking to return and reestablish their nation-state and that happened back in the 40's, initiated earlier with the Zionist political party in the late 19th century.

Again, why do you even comment on this topic when I already made an example of how clueless you are last thread.

E: Now that I can very easily pick your comment apart.

with very little consideration to surrounding populous

Completely false; their own declaration of independence called for the cooperation of Jews and Arabs, even directly after the multitude of riots and massacres against the returning Jews a day before the 1948 war they still added in this.

WE APPEAL - in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months - to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions.

I know you tried peddling the whole "expulsion" meme as most people do, but the reality of the matter is the Jews, Israel, have never attempted to expel, undermine, or subject to unfair treatment those who weren't Jewish. All refugees are not non-Jewish, in fact, many were Jewish and Christian as well during the Israeli-Arab wars when towns would be entirely evacuated of all inhabitants irregardless of religion or ethnic background. Furthermore, hundreds-of-thousands of non-Jews did remain within Israel during and after the 1948, 67 and 73 war.

The only people peddling the "expulsion" viewpoint are pseudo-historians like Pappe, who have been caught completely altering direct quotes and later lying about it to try and cover up his half-assed work.

It is worth noting that in other states with arbitrary borders (looking at Africa), there is much strife within states themselves due to the many nations that lie within a

I wonder how many of those have expansionist and murderous theologies as neighbors?

The thing about that whole region is that everyone has their own religion and they're all fighting, all the time. If the religions could cooperatively exist, this wouldn't even be a question. Palestinians have lived in the region for over 2000 years, but the Jewish people have as well. It's not really about rights because both sides have equal right, but both sides also hate each other and won't play nice. Then there's also the perspective that Israel's existence is just the US extending a more modern colonialist arm into the Middle East and we all know that colonialism is a no-no.

If I had to give a single, simple answer to that question I'd probably say "N/A" lol.

Just to start off with a really simple test, please explain who the "Palestinians" we're 2,000 years ago.

A "Palestinian" peoples has never existed in recorded history. Not only that, Arabs never identified with being "Palestinian" until Arafat. All of Arab nationalism prior to revolved around Southern and Greater Syria, led by Emir Faisal. Hence why he was the one representing the Arab movement during the war against the Ottomans in the Levant, with the British and other Jews.

"Both sides hate each other."

Only one side has incited violence and wars of annihilation.

Inb4 "i-Israel genocide!" Or "Pallywood ethnic cleansing!"

When I'm at home off work I'll start pasting all the League of Nations and UN reports that detailed everything that contradicts these propaganda points.

Then again, I already posted all of this when I buried moe in the last thread.

Now that i'm home this will be much easier.

Awwwww. Gotcha. Well I still think that they have the right to exist as a nation-state. They just need to stop expanding their territory. They're doing exactly what Hitler did to kickoff WWII when he claimed the Sudetenland

Entirely false. Can you give me a single example of Israel "expanding their territory" after 1973? I'll save you the time and effort, they haven't, and ironically, they've done exactly the opposite, giving land back to those who publicly proclaim their destruction and teach the murder of Jews in schools.

I'm also suspecting you'll bring up the "illegal settlements" in the WB. The "settlements" are entirely legal and aren't built within Area A, which is legally the PA's; it's illegal for non-residents (Jews) to even step foot in these areas. Area C, as per the Oslo Accords, agreed to by the PA, is fully under Israeli military control. Area B is jointly the PA and IDF, however, the IDF maintains seniority in certain instances (such as arrests).

Furthermore, the WB was never "Palestinian" to begin with, it was under Jordanian control (illegally, against the UN resolution which would have divided it among the Jewish/Arab state, but it doesn't seem like people like to talk about that fact too much, wonder why) and taken during wartime to defend their exposed major cities. Same exact issue with the Golan Heights and the dispute with Syria. I guess Syria should have thought about that before firing mortars and sniping villagers.

Do you want to continue with Gaza? Gaza is a wonderful mess in which they forcefully evicted every single last Jew (you probably don't remember the live footage on our news stations of the IDF literally dragging their fellow Jews out as they adamantly refused to leave), and of course Israel got peace in return. Oh wait... no, that's not what happened sorry. In return, Israel got tens-of-thousands of rockets and threats of annihilation. Kind of reminds me when Arafat "recognized" Israel as the Jewish nation and its right to exist, yet..... the violence still continued. Kind of like how when leaders of the PLO are interviewed by Western media they lie and lie and lie, then back home it's almost like a comedy as they go back to calling for the murder of Jews and destruction if Israel.

 

[Spyder69]

Does it have a right to exist?
the recent creation of the state of Israel in 1948, and specifically their "soft" ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians.

In short, yes. I see a lot of "w-well such-and-such is sooo 'arbitrarily' defined!" type of talk thrown around and it gets a bit old. Fact of the matter is Israel and the Jews are a very unique case. Israel was a Jewish kingdom that existed thousands of years ago, the Jews since then have been wanting to return to this land and reestablish their nation.

Unfortunately, for thousands of years other conquering powers have held it since then, and only recently during WWI was the chance for the Jews to return a reality thanks to the coming together of the Zionist political party and the cooperation of the British and a very key person, King Emir Faisal, who was supportive of the Jewish return.

You might find some of the interviews in the above video very interesting. Faisal was positive due to the understanding that Arab and Jewish cooperation could make the entire region a success with what the Jews would be bringing with them (as they'll name specifically, large sums of money and the fact that virtually all the best scientists and doctors were Jewish).

Sadly, not everything went to plan as the French quite literally fucked everything up with Syria. (can the French do anything right? At all?)

The conflict in the Levant stems from only a very few people and a few bad decisions on the IDF side that went against IDF orders (hence why you have certain villages/towns that experienced less than ideal situations for evacuation, or as propagandists would put it "expulsion, when in reality, you can find account after account of engagements between Israeli paramilitary and Arab fighters, in some instances dressed as women, but I digress), and the any number of actions taken by the Arab league that started with the forceful expulsion of almost their entire Jewish populations.

http://www.dhimmitude.org/archive/littman_unhrc_wupj_17jul03.pdf
The Palestinian Refugee Issue: Rhetoric vs. Reality | Jerusalem Center For Public Affairs
A/364 of 3 September 1947

Long reads, but you'll find things of this nature interesting if you're interested in the actual historicity of what has happened.

I have a lot of other links to older documents on my other work computer but I have no clue where it is. Some of them are in my old thread though.

If you have any questions pertaining to any topic feel free to ask.

 

[Felix]

Everything has a right to existence. Whether or not it should stay in existence is a different question; the wording of a question can change the answer drastically.

Also are we talking about the occupation?

I don't know a lot about the situation with Israel, other than that we supply them with about 4 billion dollars each year in arms, food, supplies, etc. I think the occupation can be less hostile, however I don't think it shouldn't exist. We do need some sort of power in the Middle East, and I think Israel is perfect for that.

Do other countries have the "right" to exist? If so, on what basis do you argue that they do?

Say Australia, the UK, or the US?

As I stated above, everything has a "right" to exist. Take a look at what the countries stated provide for the people of their country as well as the rest of the world, based off of that, should they exist? If you ask me I say yeah they should.