NationStates Jolt Archive

In my opinion, Israel as a state does not have a "right to exist." No state does. States, if they are to exist, must be subject to the popular opinion of the people are within their sphere of influence. If at any time it strays from this, its people have a right to abolish it.

Beyond this, Israel does not have a right to terrorize (yes, that's right, I said "terrorize") the Palestinians or its neighbors. It has no right to harm innocents under the vague notion it is "protecting its right to exist."

Similarly, others do not have a right to kill Israeli civilians in retaliation for the acts of the Israeli government. Respect is a two way street. Both Israel and the Palestinians must stop this petty strife if there is ever to be peace and safety for them and their children.

*posts agreement before the Zionists arrive*

It is true, a state exists only by the will of the people, no state has a right to be in existence.

*agrees*

In my opinion, Israel as a state does not have a "right to exist." No state does. States, if they are to exist, must be subject to the popular opinion of the people are within their sphere of influence. If at any time it strays from this, its people have a right to abolish it.

Beyond this, Israel does not have a right to terrorize (yes, that's right, I said "terrorize") the Palestinians or its neighbors. It has no right to harm innocents under the vague notion it is "protecting its right to exist."

Similarly, others do not have a right to kill Israeli civilians in retaliation for the acts of the Israeli government. Respect is a two way street. Both Israel and the Palestinians must stop this petty strife if there is ever to be peace and safety for them and their children.

I agree 100% with your entire post. Well put. :)

Amazingly enough, I haven't been viciously flamed yet.

Well you're right, for anyone to deny it would be foolish.

Amazingly enough, I haven't been viciously flamed yet.must be monday :D

Well you're right, for anyone to deny it would be foolish.

Then color me foolish. :rolleyes: I won't flame him, I will just say I do not agree with him 100%.

Both Israel and the Palestinians must stop this petty strife if there is ever to be peace and safety for them and their children.

Try telling them that.

You've gotten me thinking, what color is foolish :p

You've gotten me thinking, what color is foolish :p

Dunno...A shade of shit brown maybe?

You've gotten me thinking, what color is foolish :p

Depends on the month. Right now, I'm thinking it's red-state red.

I won't flame him, I will just say I do not agree with him 100%.

what part do you disagree it is mostly the same sentence over and over again?

Try telling them that.

He has hence the thread

Then color me foolish. :rolleyes: I will.. but first you would have to call me "Anti-semite" or "Nazi".. as you usually do. (when I say you.. i dont mean only you.. I mean "your kind")

In my opinion, Israel as a state does not have a "right to exist." No state does. States, if they are to exist, must be subject to the popular opinion of the people are within their sphere of influence. If at any time it strays from this, its people have a right to abolish it.

Then why are you targeting Israel and its right to exist if you don't believe in states to begin with?

And the flamefest begins!

what part do you disagree it is mostly the same sentence over and over again?




In my opinion, Israel as a state does not have a "right to exist." No state does. States, if they are to exist, must be subject to the popular opinion of the people are within their sphere of influence. If at any time it strays from this, its people have a right to abolish it.



That. I believe the Jews need Israel if the religion is to survive..I am not jewish nor religious and I don't support abolishing any state because the people hate it, if that were true the US should have been abolished in the 60's during vietnam. I support changing the state and its leaders, not getting rid of it.

And the flamefest begins!

Who is flaming? Not me.:confused:

Right, I forgot that dissenting opinions amount to flaming.

I will.. but first you would have to call me "Anti-semite" or "Nazi".. as you usually do. (when I say you.. i dont mean only you.. I mean "your kind")


....I never called you either one..so why would I start now?

Right, I forgot that dissenting opinions amount to flaming.

If you support Israel you are a troll on this forum.

Then why are you targeting Israel and its right to exist if you don't believe in states to begin with?
I think he/she believes in states, just not that they have a right to exist. Israel is the only nation that justify their actions with that excuse.

Then why are you targeting Israel and its right to exist if you don't believe in states to begin with?

1. It doesn't have a right to exist. No state does. I started this thread because of the misconception being spread that it did have a right to exist.

2. I'm not targeting Israel. I'm targeting its supporters who ridiculously levy the Israeli state more rights than its citizens.

If you support Israel you are a troll on this forum.

Same if you are a conservative and or republican or bush lover...and a christian....

Who is flaming? Not me.:confused:

I didn't say you were, but I'm pretty sure that it's gonna start soon....

I didn't say you were, but I'm pretty sure that it's gonna start soon....


Please don't flamebait.

I think he/she believes in states, just not that they have a right to exist. Israel is the only nation that justify their actions with that excuse.

Well, I'm a "he," and I don't believe that states are a necessity for human social organization. Conditionally, I think they are nescesary now because of the existence of private power structures. Ultimately, I believe that if a state is to exist, it must serve its citizens or be altered or abolished.

we do have a right to exist you nazi F$%k

am yisrael chai

Please don't flamebait.

I'm not inciting, I'm predicting.

Well in this context, what does "right" mean? The means and motive? Yes indeed it does. Or do you mean the legal right? I'm hazy there. The reason, the reasonable justification? Meh. Or in the sense of universal rights? In that case I agree. No state has any inherent "rights." However, people do.

Same if you are a conservative and or republican or bush lover...and a christian....

Here is what I find funny. Someone starts an extreme right thread with dumb ideas that sound like they'd come from Ann Coulter and they are dubbed a flame-baiting troll. Someone does the exact same thing on the extreme left and they are heroes and those who disagree with them are trolls and thus ignored.

If you support Israel you are a troll on this forum.

It's not a question of if one supports the Israeli people. The question is rather why must the Israeli government use hostility against the Israeli people for Machiavellian ends.

Then why are you targeting Israel and its right to exist if you don't believe in states to begin with?

the whole right to exist shabbaz seems to be the problem with the whole middle east especially Isreal

That. I believe the Jews need Israel if the religion is to survive..I am not jewish nor religious

the Jews have done fine without Israel and we sure have tried to get rid of them in the past

and I don't support abolishing any state because the people hate it

can't have a country without a people especially since the people believing in the nation is what makes it exist

if that were true the US should have been abolished in the 60's during vietnam.

no I'm sure everyone just wanted out of Vietnam, very different things

I support changing the state and its leaders, not getting rid of it.

does that means your back in the British empire?

Here is what I find funny. Someone starts an extreme right thread with dumb ideas that sound like they'd come from Ann Coulter and they are dubbed a flame-baiting troll. Someone does the exact same thing on the extreme left and they are heroes and those who disagree with them are trolls and thus ignored.

Well...Most people here are liberals so you are bound to get some bias. Samething may happen at a right leaning forum.

we do have a right to exist you nazi F$%k

am yisrael chai

You as an indvidual or as a people? Absolutely. The Israeli government? Absolutely not.

Someone does the exact same thing on the extreme left and they are heroes and those who disagree with them are trolls and thus ignored.

Examples?

Examples?
Pick a thread, any thread.

If you support Israel you are a troll on this forum.

no that’s just you

Someone does the exact same thing on the extreme left and they are heroes and those who disagree with them are trolls and thus ignored.

where is this mystical thread?

Examples?

Don't hold your breath.

As an anarchist, I oppose all states, including Israel and any hypothetical Palestinian one. Both peoples, however, have a right to self-determination, and to peace and security. It is the fulfillment of those rights that should be the focus.

am yisrael chai

"Am yisrael"... not "medinat yisrael."

....I never called you either one..so why would I start now?like I said.. (in white)

Your name makes me think you're Trotskyist...

the Jews have done fine without Israel and we sure have tried to get rid of them in the past

Religions have a habit of almost dissappering without a home state. Look at zoroastrainism(spelling)



can't have a country without a people especially since the people believing in the nation is what makes it exist


They all have people.



no I'm sure everyone just wanted out of Vietnam, very different things


Like i said, change what you hate instead of getting rid of the nation.



does that means your back in the British empire?



No. That wasn't a country IMO, that was one nation invading and taking nations and land from other people. Just because a nation has a right to exist doesn't give it a right to invade and conquer other nations. That mean the UK violated Indias right to exist by invading it.

the Jews have done fine without Israel and we sure have tried to get rid of them in the past
WTF have you been smoking. Without Israel we have been enslaved by the Roman Empire, kicked out of every European country, blamed for the Black Death, had blood libel lies told about us, endured the Inquisition, been put in ghettoes, had the ghetto walls torn down 200 years ago and were led to believe that anti-semitism was over, got put in the pale, suffered pogroms, had Hitler come to power, got put in ghettoes again, got put in concentration camps, andgot sent to extermination camps. GMAFB. The Jews are only safe now because Israel and its nukes will fuck up anyone who tries to do what Hitler did to the Jews.



can't have a country without a people especially since the people believing in the nation is what makes it exist
The Jewish people are what make Israel exist. The people may not always support the leading party at any time (the leading coalition always changes with every election cycle because the Israelis are impatient to some degree). It is undeniable that the Israelis support the State if not always the government.

[/QUOTE]

personally, I'm of the opinion that Israel should drop the whole Jewish part of their government. they're already a secular democracy, so it shouldn't matter much anyway. but you're damn right that the Jews have a right to live in the West Bank. And so do the Palestinians. Unfortunately religion seems to be blinding people from the best possible solution of co-existence. *shrug* people get upset about a "Jewish state" (which encompasses very little of the total 'Muslim' land anyway...), but seem perfectly content with the already vast number of Muslim states in existence. politics...politics...

Your name makes me think you're Trotskyist...

IIRC, the thread starter is an anarcho-communist.

Examples?

TRA comes to mind when he was in existance.

The Jews are only safe now

Are we, really? Haven't you been ranting about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad here? Iran is, after all, endagering the millions of Jewish residents of Israel.

Seems like a stupid plan to me. Gather a whole lot of Jews in one place, antagonize the neighbors and the native population, and pretend that it's some kind of solution to anti-Semitism.

TRA comes to mind when he was in existance.

"When he was in existence"... so this fellow (I have no idea who you're talking about) was banned?

So much for your allegations of bias.

Are we, really? Haven't you been ranting about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad here? Iran is, after all, endagering the millions of Jewish residents of Israel.

Seems like a stupid plan to me. Gather a whole lot of Jews in one place, antagonize the neighbors and the native population, and pretend that it's some kind of solution to anti-Semitism.

Don't worry about Iran, if that nut tries anything the USA will glass Iran...with countless other nations who hate him to.

if that nut tries anything the USA will glass Iran

Sounds like a failure, then, if we have to depend on Gentiles to protect us. Wasn't the whole point of Israel making such protection superfluous?

Are we, really? Haven't you been ranting about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad here? Iran is, after all, endagering the millions of Jewish residents of Israel.

Seems like a stupid plan to me. Gather a whole lot of Jews in one place, antagonize the neighbors and the native population, and pretend that it's some kind of solution to anti-Semitism.

So long as Israel has nukes, Ahamdinejad will never be able to see his plan come to life. Israel will kill him if they have to.

Israel's existance prevents assimilation. In a society like the US, assimilation would destroy the Jewish people. Just look at how the US Jewish population has dropped 400,000 (almost 10%) in less than a decade. In order for any cultural or religious group to survive, they must have a state.

The U.S needs to mind its own damn business.

"When he was in existence"... so this fellow (I have no idea who you're talking about) was banned?

So much for your allegations of bias.

He was banned for spam

"When he was in existence"... so this fellow (I have no idea who you're talking about) was banned?

So much for your allegations of bias.

I don't believe he was permanently banned; but he ceased to exist (presumably) because he didn't feel like coming to these forums anymore.

He wasn't banned, by the way for his leftism, the dude was banned because he posted crap propaganda from leftist sites (copy-pasted every time) with little commentary, containing nearly no substance whatsoever.

Sounds like a failure, then, if we have to depend on Gentiles to protect us. Wasn't the whole point of Israel making such protection superfluous?

You should never reject help of those who wish to protect you. With all the hostile nations around Israel...I say they just may need it.

So long as Israel has nukes, Ahamdinejad will never be able to see his plan come to life. Israel will kill him if they have to.

Nice. So perpetual war with potential nuclear powers is the plan for the security of the nation.

Israel's existance prevents assimilation. In a society like the US, assimilation would destroy the Jewish people.

So what? There is nothing wrong with willing assimilation.

You should never reject help of those who wish to protect you. With all the hostile nations around Israel...I say they just may need it.

Something most people ignore is the fact that Israel won it's first 3 wars without any arms or assistance from the US. The US didn't even open up arms sales to Israel until after the Six Day War.

The U.S needs to mind its own damn business.

I have no problem with the US aiding small and or poor nations and protecting them from hostile powers.

The U.S needs to mind its own damn business.

Hear, hear!

He wasn't banned, by the way for his leftism,

No one is banned for their political ideology.

the dude was banned because he posted crap propaganda from leftist sites (copy-pasted every time) with little commentary, containing nearly no substance whatsoever.

So, contrary to IDF's assertion, extreme leftists making stupid threads do get negative responses.

Nice. So perpetual war with potential nuclear powers is the plan for the security of the nation.
If you combine the total deaths by Israelis in the wars Israel has fought, the number is far lower than the number of Jews killed at any point during the Diaspara. It sucks, but it's better than what we had.



So what? There is nothing wrong with willing assimilation.We lose everything that is our culture and religion with assimilation. We lose our identity.

Something most people ignore is the fact that Israel won it's first 3 wars without any arms or assistance from the US. The US didn't even open up arms sales to Israel until after the Six Day War.

Cambodia....the CIA's secret war...

*posts agreement before the Zionists arrive*

I'll have to settle for posting agreement after they arrive, then.

*does so*

I have no problem with the US aiding small and or poor nations and protecting them from hostile powers.

Why should it be our responsibility?

We lose everything that is our culture and religion with assimilation. We lose our identity.

So said the South African National Party when justifying apartheid.

The U.S needs to mind its own damn business.

Right...because the United States isn't part of the international community...and should ignore international conflicts...

If you combine the total deaths by Israelis in the wars Israel has fought, the number is far lower than the number of Jews killed at any point during the Diaspara. It sucks, but it's better than what we had.

You're comparing apples and oranges. Something like the Holocaust would never happen in Europe or the US these days. And, no, not just because of Israel.

Gays were persecuted in Europe for centuries, too. Now they're getting marriage rights.

We lose everything that is our culture and religion with assimilation. We lose our identity.

Again, so? If YOU want to preserve our culture and religion, go ahead - no one's stopping you. But if no one else wants to, that's none of your business.

Religions have a habit of almost dissappering without a home state. Look at zoroastrainism(spelling)

Judaism hasn't though and I don't think sealing yourself away in a nation will do too much good

They all have people.

:confused:

Like i said, change what you hate instead of getting rid of the nation.

what if you want elimination of borders?

No. That wasn't a country IMO, that was one nation invading and taking nations and land from other people. Just because a nation has a right to exist doesn't give it a right to invade and conquer other nations. That mean the UK violated Indias right to exist by invading it.

you might want to study Imperial history before making such claims (in particular settlements in the Americas)

WTF have you been smoking. Without Israel we have been enslaved by the Roman Empire, kicked out of every European country, blamed for the Black Death, had blood libel lies told about us, endured the Inquisition, been put in ghettoes, had the ghetto walls torn down 200 years ago and were led to believe that anti-semitism was over, got put in the pale, suffered pogroms, had Hitler come to power, got put in ghettoes again, got put in concentration camps, andgot sent to extermination camps. GMAFB. The Jews are only safe now because Israel and its nukes will fuck up anyone who tries to do what Hitler did to the Jews.

so really your just Xenophobic? (and Israel hasn't been doing too good a job at protecting the Jews has it:p )

The Jewish people are what make Israel exist.

no, Israelis do..

It is undeniable that the Israelis support the State if not always the government.

and thus it exists I’m confused are you goi9ng anywhere with this? (note that I haven’t posted anything yet about Israel not having a right to exist)

Cambodia....the CIA's secret war...

No, the Secret War was in Laos.

We lose everything that is our culture and religion with assimilation. We lose our identity.

Sorry, IDF, but I can't agree with you on this point. First of all, Israel is mostly Jewish to begin with, and Westernized. If anyone is going to subject to more assimilation it would be the Muslims in the area. There is absolutely nothing wrong with cultural diffusion. Cultural diffusion exists in America and we haven't lost our identity. We're still Americans, just like Israelis...should be Israelis, Muslim or Jewish.

Again, so? If YOU want to preserve our culture and religion, go ahead - no one's stopping you. But if no one else wants to, that's none of your business.

Hear, hear!

*gives Soheran a sugar cookie, with - appropriately enough - red frosting*

Right...because the United States isn't part of the international community...and should ignore international conflicts...

It is possible to be a part of the international community and not try to be the savior of the world.

No, the Secret War was in Laos.

I'm sure there are plenty of secret wars to go around…

It is possible to be a part of the international community and not try to be the savior of the world.

Agreed.

*cough* Switzerland *cough*

It should be noted that Israel is hardly immune to assimilation; it's pretty integrated into the global economy. Ultimately secularism will triumph there as well.

Which is undoubtedly a good thing, when the alternative is having Haredim threatening to attack gay "abominations" with the audacity to proclaim themselves loudly and unashamedly in public.

I'm sure there are plenty of secret wars to go around…

Usually when one says "Secret War," they're referring to Laos. The Cambodia one wasn't so secret, since the world found out about it.

We lose everything that is our culture and religion with assimilation. We lose our identity.
"Jewish" culture is a mix of cultures from different nations which said Jews are living in. There is no "Jewish" culture if you were to compare, say, Dutch Jews with Persian Jews.

So, no, Jews do not lose culture when assimilating, but rather, become normal citizens of a nation, and thus, far less prone to anti-semitism.

Religion? I think not.....one can be an assimilated American and still be Jewish. Hell, look at the Mormons...totally different from the rest of America religiously, yet still American.

There is nothing wrong with Jewish assimilation, in fact, I encourage it.


So said the South African National Party when justifying apartheid.
Yes...and perhaps they were right? Not the best time to be White in ZA now, is it?;)

Yes...and perhaps they were right? Not the best time to be White in ZA now, is it?;)

No, they weren't right.

Yes...and perhaps they were right? Not the best time to be White in ZA now, is it?;)

well odds are you will be rich...and knee deep in hash

paradise-ish

No, they weren't right.
"Not the best time to be White in ZA now, huh?;) "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4613269.stm

well odds are you will be rich...and knee deep in hash

paradise-ish
....and fleeing the country......

"Not the best time to be White in ZA now, huh?;) "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4613269.stm

I never said that. I said "they" (the South African National Party) weren't right to implement apartheid.

I never said that. I said "they" (the South African National Party) weren't right to implement apartheid.
Fine. But they were right to be worried about what would happen to Whites in ZA, right?

Fine. But they were right to be worried about what would happen to Whites in ZA, right?

As what happens to white people may well be linked to having an apartheid state in the first place, its rather a fallacious thing to bring up, particularily as they just presumed non-whites inferior.

Are you on one of your pointy-hood outings?

In my opinion, Israel as a state does not have a "right to exist." No state does. States, if they are to exist, must be subject to the popular opinion of the people are within their sphere of influence. If at any time it strays from this, its people have a right to abolish it.

Beyond this, Israel does not have a right to terrorize (yes, that's right, I said "terrorize") the Palestinians or its neighbors. It has no right to harm innocents under the vague notion it is "protecting its right to exist."

Similarly, others do not have a right to kill Israeli civilians in retaliation for the acts of the Israeli government. Respect is a two way street. Both Israel and the Palestinians must stop this petty strife if there is ever to be peace and safety for them and their children.

Erm, if I'm correct, alot of Anti-Isarael attacks, (hezbollahs rockets) did not require an initial action from Israel, they are good about attacking when attacked.

Nor does the arab world have the right too terrorize Israels sons and daughters, based on a vague notion of thier rights too the land, and arab liberation.

Erm, if I'm correct, alot of Anti-Isarael attacks, (hezbollahs rockets) did not require an initial action from Israel, they are good about attacking when attacked.

Nor does the arab world have the right too terrorize Israels sons and daughters, based on a vague notion of thier rights too the land, and arab liberation.

point taken. how many invasions/full scale attacks has israel braved from its surrounding nations since it inception and how many has it initiated?

well my own feeling is that every soverign nation, and many cultures lacking in soverign representation, has just as much right to exist as any other.

whether or not soverignty itself as a concept has a right to exist, well it's one of those defacto things that at this point in time does.

what i don't think has a right to exist, is for any nation to practice, let alone embody, fanatacism of any kind, be religeous, economic or idiological or anything else. so the idea of a 'religeous state' is to me, equaly anathima, be it jewish, christian, musllim, or even buddhist.

every nation has a right to exist that treats everyone withing its borders with the same rights, prevelages and responsibilities, and without closing its borders to any unarmed civilian wishing to cross them in any direction at any point for any reason at any time.

by that deffinician of course, the right of most nations, including super powerful ones such as the u.s., is, grated, itself, highly questionable.

in re specificly israel, therefore, and again, it has percisely as much right to exist as it has willingness to behaive itself, (which does appear of recent times somewhat dubious), precisely as does any other nation.

i question america's right to exist as a nation as long as it refuses to return hawaii to indipendent soverignty, likewise puerto rico, return american samoa to samoan samoa, give alaska to canada, or perhapse be broken up into regeonal soverignties.

i don't for example see either israel or iran as having any more or less right to exist then each other. or saudi arabia, and so on.

and i think christianity and islam should both get their butts out of the philipenes. nor do i feel economic interests have a right to dictate the lives of people and cultures with no inheirent inclination to subscribe to them.

=^^=
.../\...

Religions have a habit of almost dissappering without a home state. Look at zoroastrainism(spelling)I think the fact that Judaism survived the Diaspora for so long proves that it won't disappear without a home state.

Fine. But they were right to be worried about what would happen to Whites in ZA, right?

Had there never been apartheid, it's doubtful anti-white sentiment would be this bad.

point taken. how many invasions/full scale attacks has israel braved from its surrounding nations since it inception and how many has it initiated?

Hmm, do not quote me mate. A coalition of arab nations attacked israel, from the Golan heights and the south, and were repelled.

Then an addtional arab coalition attacked.

Iraqi Scud missels pounded into israel pre-gulf war.

Hezbollah launched thousands of rockets at Haifa, and northern Isreal, too which Isareal responded...then withdrew.


My point, Isreal is the noble, sensible player in the region. They act out of security and retaliation, not some sensless jihad. Would Egypt, Syria, and others have left, if they had victory in the 60's? Im guessing no.

Of course Israel as such has a right to exist. But there is no reason at all why it should exist is Palestine.

Iraqi Scud missels pounded into israel pre-gulf war. .

About 40 of them....

.

Hezbollah launched thousands of rockets at Haifa, and northern Isreal, too which Isareal responded...then withdrew..[/QUOTE]

...this time. Unlike last time. And isn't there an area they're hanging on to?


My point, Isreal is the noble, sensible player in the region. ..

In an overagressive, colonising way.....

Had there never been apartheid, it's doubtful anti-white sentiment would be this bad.
And the economy, law and order and democracy would likely be far stronger too.

And the economy, law and order and democracy would likely be far stronger too.
Doubtful, as ZA was "better", in terms of economics, law an order, of course, during the apartheid era.
Had there never been apartheid, it's doubtful anti-white sentiment would be this bad.
Again, doubtful. For instance, look at what Mugabe is doing to Whites...and Zimbabwe didnt have the same apartheid government ZA did.
As what happens to white people may well be linked to having an apartheid state in the first place, its rather a fallacious thing to bring up, particularily as they just presumed non-whites inferior.

Are you on one of your pointy-hood outings?
See above.

Again, doubtful. For instance, look at what Mugabe is doing to Whites...and Zimbabwe didnt have the same apartheid government ZA did.

See above.

Zimbabwe was Rhodesia which had an apartheid system, as far as I recall.

Zimbabwe was Rhodesia which had an apartheid system, as far as I recall.
They didn't call it that, Apartheid being an Afrikaans word, but my take on it is that it isn't much different white supremacist bigotry.

They didn't call it that, Apartheid being an Afrikaans word, but my take on it is that it isn't much different white supremacist bigotry.


True, I just used it in a generic sense.

"The political system of Rhodesia made its whites one of the wealthiest communities in the world. Although never significantly more than 5% of the total population, whites dominated the country and used this domination to their own advantage. 50% of the land was reserved for white ownership and most senior positions in the public service were reserved for whites. The provision of healthcare, education and social services were all heavily weighted towards whites. For example, education was provided along racially segregated lines, and eleven times more was spent per head on white pupils than was spent on blacks. [3] This was the system that Smith would become committed to maintain and defend."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Smith

Beyond this, Israel does not have a right to terrorize (yes, that's right, I said "terrorize") the Palestinians or its neighbors. It has no right to harm innocents under the vague notion it is "protecting its right to exist."


The Isralies do not try and kill innocents. Innocents die because the Palestian terrorists hide amoung civilians so as to protect themselves

Of course Israel as such has a right to exist. But there is no reason at all why it should exist is Palestine.

That argument can be turned around

Of course Palestine has a right to exist, but theres no reason at all why it should exist in Israel

You see. There is a reason why both sides want that land. Because that land means something to them. If the Palestians were offered a state in Normandy or the Israelies a state in Alberta do you think either of them would be happy. Both have a claim, both need a state. That is what the partition recognised and provided.

In my opinion, Israel as a state does not have a "right to exist." No state does. States, if they are to exist, must be subject to the popular opinion of the people are within their sphere of influence. If at any time it strays from this, its people have a right to abolish it.

Beyond this, Israel does not have a right to terrorize (yes, that's right, I said "terrorize") the Palestinians or its neighbors. It has no right to harm innocents under the vague notion it is "protecting its right to exist."

Similarly, others do not have a right to kill Israeli civilians in retaliation for the acts of the Israeli government. Respect is a two way street. Both Israel and the Palestinians must stop this petty strife if there is ever to be peace and safety for them and their children.

I agree mostly, but you are acting as if Israel intentionally harms innocents, which I disagree.

The Isralies do not try and kill innocents. Innocents die because the Palestian terrorists hide amoung civilians so as to protect themselves .

According to the IDF....


Wheres the source for the hospitals claim, btw?

Wheres the source for the hospitals claim, btw?

I had a chance to grab a look at the index of the book in the shop today. Its in the Jerusalem Post 18th April 2002.

I had a chance to grab a look at the index of the book in the shop today. Its in the Jerusalem Post 18th April 2002.

Why isnt there an Israeli government press release? They're the ones making the offer, I would presume.

Your name makes me think you're Trotskyist...

I'm not. The name is just a joke, actually. It came from some D&D campaigns that I was playing with some friends. We were adventuring through the twin nations of "Marxylvania" and "Trotskylvania." They were post-communist kleptocracies with plenty of plundering abound.

Why isnt there an Israeli government press release? They're the ones making the offer, I would presume.

No, Israels hospitals are not political, it is they who made the offer not the government.

Israeli health experts have been and are willing to help Palestinian health professional regarding pharmaceuticals, infectious disease, and other public health matters, but they were turned down by Za'anoun. The PA regards Israel as an enemy, so they refuse to accept direct Israeli assistance, Sever said.

In my opinion, Israel as a state does not have a "right to exist." No state does.
Lol @ anarchism! (how's that for a crushing argument??)

Beyond this, Israel does not have a right to terrorize (yes, that's right, I said "terrorize") the Palestinians or its neighbors.
I agree.

Respect is a two way street. Both Israel and the Palestinians must stop this petty strife if there is ever to be peace and safety for them and their children.

My thoughts exactly. No more vengeance!

"in my opinion, Israel as a state does not have a "right to exist." No state does. States, if they are to exist, must be subject to the popular opinion of the people are within their sphere of influence. If at any time it strays from this, its people have a right to abolish it. "
OP

however consequently no-one else has a right to abolish it, therefore when the state government is subject to the popular opinion of its population, it has a right to exist, because its population, who have a right to self-determination wish it to do so.

"Therefore a wise prince will seek means by which his subjects will always and in every possible condition of things have need of his government, and then they will always be faithful to him."

Niccolo Machiavelli
"The Prince"

however consequently no-one else has a right to abolish it, therefore when the state government is subject to the popular opinion of its population, it has a right to exist, because its population, who have a right to self-determination wish it to do so.

"Therefore a wise prince will seek means by which his subjects will always and in every possible condition of things have need of his government, and then they will always be faithful to him."

Niccolo Machiavelli
"The Prince"

The foundation of democratic theory is the right of the people to alter or abolish the state. If one gives the state its own right to exist, it legitimizes any action the state takes to oppress people that dissent, by reason that those dissenters were threatening the state's right to exist. So giving a state a right to exist legitimizes totalitarianism.

Machiavelli was a control freak. In reality, few dictators behave according to what he thought a "wise prince" would do to maintain power.

of course but thats just restating your original point, a state thats citizens want it to exist has a right to exist.

of course but thats just restating your original point, a state thats citizens want it to exist has a right to exist.

No, citizens have the right to choose whether or not they will live under a state, and how that state will function. The state cannot have its own independent right to exist, which Israel has claimed as justification for its oppression of Palestinians.

"a state thats citizens want it to exist has a right to exist."

in what sense is that right independent of its citizens? it is dependent on them.

Hey, an original thread!

"a state thats citizens want it to exist has a right to exist."

in what sense is that right independent of its citizens? it is dependent on them.

It still presuposes that a state has a right to exist. It's really just a matter of semantics. The citizens have the right, the state does not.

In order for any cultural or religious group to survive, they must have a state.

except of course the Palestians....

except of course the Palestians....

ZOMG! But they're not people, pinko liberal homo-commie! ;)

I'll give my $0.02 in response to the OP. I don't necessarily believe that Israel has a right to exist. I believe that the Jews have the right to a homeland, or a land with a Jewish majority. Funnily enough there were talks of giving them an old African colony (Ghana I think), and the Zionist Federation was willing to accept as a compromise, but then the British offered Palestine on a platter and who could refuse that? Jews have lived in Israel for centuries, contrary to popular belief, and their development of an independant state in the area is perfectly justified in my opnion.

Wait, I just re-read your second paragraph. Terrorising their neighbours? I guess you haven't read about Israel's peace with Jordan and Egypt. If your refering to Lebanon I cite the kidnap of two soldiers and the constant rocket attacks by Hizbollah. Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, whilst repressive (not opressive) is hardly terrorism. Believe me, half my family has served in the IDF and they didn't enjoy contact with the Palestinians.

except of course the Palestians....
Or the Roma, or the Kurds or the Native Americans or anyone but the Jews apparently.

a particular state has a right to exist not just anyone, one that has gained the democratic consent of its citizens like say...Israel. even if you insist that it has no right to exist as a state. it can still claim that the determination of its citizens for it to do so is grounds for its right to defend itself.

they have two states one called jordan and one called the west bank. apparently one threw them out for being troublemakers and the other is too small.

I'll give my $0.02 in response to the OP. I don't necessarily believe that Israel has a right to exist. I believe that the Jews have the right to a homeland, or a land with a Jewish majority. Funnily enough there were talks of giving them an old African colony (Ghana I think), and the Zionist Federation was willing to accept as a compromise, but then the British offered Palestine on a platter and who could refuse that? Jews have lived in Israel for centuries, contrary to popular belief, and their development of an independant state in the area is perfectly justified in my opnion. I think oposing states out of principle is going against thousands of years of human experience of social cohesion and ruling heirachies.

Until the Israeli state was created by British Imperial fiat, jews were perfectly welcome in the Middle East. The Arab states of the time rightfully felt threatened by the creation of Anglo-American Imperial staging point in the middle east.

States are not the rule of human existence. They are relatively new social construct and are by no means the best way of organizing.

they have two states one called jordan and one called the west bank. apparently one threw them out for being troublemakers and the other is too small.

First off, please use the quote function. It helps keep discussion organized.

Secondly, Palestine has only recently been making the in roads into becoming a full state. For decades, it has been an Israeli occupied territory.

First off, please use the quote function. It helps keep discussion organized.

Secondly, Palestine has only recently been making the in roads into becoming a full state. For decades, it has been an Israeli occupied territory.

gladly, to rephrase they had one state, their angling for a second

gladly, to rephrase they had one state, their angling for a second

Well, if you mean that they were living in part of one state before it was annexed by Israel, you are correct. Granted, their troublemaking has caused a lot of friction with Jordan, but I think they would rather just live where they are then move to Jordan.

Well, if you mean that they were living in part of one state before it was annexed by Israel, you are correct. Granted, their troublemaking has caused a lot of friction with Jordan, but I think they would rather just live where they are then move to Jordan.

by and large israel seems ok with this, its the expressed intentions of their leadership to live some 50 kilometres inside their state thats causing some friction.

No, Israels hospitals are not political, it is they who made the offer not the government.

It doesnt mention Hospital facilities there. It says "health experts". Also, using your section I found the rest of the original article on a blog -

Lt.-Col Orli Malka-Rotem, director of the IDF coordination and authorities branch; Dalia Bassa, health liaison with the PA; Dr. Ya'akov Adler, emergency medicine expert and adviser to the OC Medical Corps; and Dr. Ya'acov Sever, Health Ministry expert on Palestinian health matters spoke to reporters at the Foreign Ministry's press center at the Jerusalem International Convention Center."
http://www.shoutwire.com/comments/38276/US_Vetoes_Resolution_Condemning_Israel

Its way down in the comments. So they didn't offer use of hospitals, they they offered "experts" - experts that are already there from the various UN bodies, as far as I understand it. And these lads mentioned above do not too independent of the Israeli government either.

Beyond this, Israel does not have a right to terrorize (yes, that's right, I said "terrorize") the Palestinians or its neighbors. It has no right to harm innocents under the vague notion it is "protecting its right to exist."

Similarly, others do not have a right to kill Israeli civilians in retaliation for the acts of the Israeli government. Respect is a two way street. Both Israel and the Palestinians must stop this petty strife if there is ever to be peace and safety for them and their children.

Only Israel never attacked the Palestinians or another country without provocation.

Only Israel never attacked the Palestinians or another country without provocation.

Well, yeah. Palestine isn't really a country anymore. So they've never attacked a country without provocation.

Well, yeah. Palestine isn't really a country anymore. So they've never attacked a country without provocation.

Did you even read the full sentence?

And the economy, law and order and democracy would likely be far stronger too.

I agree. Apartheid was not only evil and unjust, it was self-defeating and stupid.

Again, doubtful. For instance, look at what Mugabe is doing to Whites...and Zimbabwe didnt have the same apartheid government ZA did.

Mugabe =/= all Zimbabweans

Most ordinary Zimbabweans hate Mugabe.

Zimbabwe was Rhodesia which had an apartheid system, as far as I recall.

Rhodesia was at least gradually working for eventual majority rule. South Africa never wanted majority rule.

Machiavelli was a control freak. In reality, few dictators behave according to what he thought a "wise prince" would do to maintain power.

Mobutu read Machiavelli, and derived a bit of inspiration from The Prince.

The people who live in Israel have a right to exist, but the oppressive racist Zionist regime does not. Just as Nazi Germany or the Zionists old ally the Apartheid regime in SA did not have a right to exist.

The people who live in Israel have a right to exist, but the oppressive racist Zionist regime does not. Just as Nazi Germany or the Zionists old ally the Apartheid regime in SA did not have a right to exist.

Israel is not an apartheid and Zionism is NOT racism unlike what stupid people think.

Israel is not an apartheid and Zionism is NOT racism unlike what stupid people think.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_segregation#Israel_and_the_territories

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desmond_Tutu#Views_on_Israel.2C_the_Jewish_people_and_the_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict

the south african regime discriminated against its citizens.

the israelis discriminate against someone elses, its a big difference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Arabism#Anti-Arabism_in_Israel

http://www.rense.com/general14/itisabsurd.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Arabism#Anti-Arabism_in_Israel

And there are far more examples of anti-semitism in the Arab world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabs_and_antisemitism

You lose

http://www.rense.com/general14/itisabsurd.htm

Charlie Reese is a known anti-semite who has given us such quotes as:

"Today, there is no avoiding stating the plain truth: We have a Jewish problem."

http://www.tampabayprimer.org/index.cfm?action=articles&drill=viewArt&art=1471

The link below shows how the paper that carried the column responded to him.

http://www.tampabayprimer.org/index.cfm?action=articles&drill=viewArt&art=1474

apartheid is legal discrimination. the anti arabism in the wiki article is about the kind of thing they'd face in the UK, we have the BNP they have likud and you get racist football chants in israel as well as the south end, what a suprise.

"It Is Absurd To Say Israel
Is Not A Racist State"

no, it is absurd to say that israel is a racist state and then in the next paragraph say they do not care about race. also the right to return is not the only way to gain israeli citizenship.

And there are far more examples of anti-semitism in the Arab world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabs_and_antisemitism

You lose

Saying antisemitism exists in the Arab world does nothing to alter or diminish the fact that the Zionist regime in Israel is still racist, I could keep posting link if you like.

you could but if those were your best two i wouldn't bother, if your links show israel is racist then i could prove that saudi arabia was a racist zionist regime.

you could but if those were your best two i wouldn't bother, if your links show israel is racist then i could prove that saudi arabia was a racist zionist regime.

Goody. Then we can all agree that both states are racist then?

no, the people in the state might be racist, the laws of the israeli state are not.

Saying antisemitism exists in the Arab world does nothing to alter or diminish the fact that the Zionist regime in Israel is still racist, I could keep posting link if you like.

Your links are bullcrap because they show racism among Israeli citizens, which while bad doesn't represent the government.

My link shows some state sponsored racism on state run newspapers and TV channels. Those are products of the state.

Your links are bullcrap because they show racism among Israeli citizens, which while bad doesn't represent the government.

My link shows some state sponsored racism on state run newspapers and TV channels. Those are products of the state.

Doesn't make the racism part of the equation any better or worse in my estimation.

Doesn't make the racism part of the equation any better or worse in my estimation.

Even someone with your reasoning skills should be able to realize how different it is. A small portion of the populous being racist is VERY different from having government owned outlets brainwashing a populous to be racist.

Although, I will say it is bad in all cases.

Even someone with your reasoning skills should be able to realize how different it is.

Gee, thanks. So good of you to condescend to speaking to one of your inferiors.

A small portion of the populous being racist is VERY different from having government owned outlets brainwashing a populous to be racist.

Why - because it'll take longer to permeate? Pfft.

Although, I will say it is bad in all cases.

Your mirror's apparently cracked then, kind good sir.

Why - because it'll take longer to permeate? Pfft.

no because theres a difference between having racists in your country and having them in power, its the difference between the existence of the ku klux klan and having them run the country.

And there are far more examples of anti-semitism in the Arab world.

This is not a competition. It's never been.

"Look, they do it too!" is no excuse.

no because theres a difference between having racists in your country and having them in power, its the difference between the existence of the ku klux klan and having them run the country.

If there's a difference, it's superficial at best - and, as I maintain, only one of degree. So, the Klan itself isn't in power - okay. So what happens when the views of the Klan, having been allowed the time to percolate through society sufficiently enough that those in power, as well as the population-at-large, are sympathetic to those views?

I'm not persuaded there's any palpable difference, as the end result is very much the same.

just like what happen with the klan in real life..... hang on.

yet if the government took the trouble to completely control and approve of all political meetings and public speeches you'd complain they were oppressive wouldn't you?

just like what happen with the klan in real life..... hang on.

yet if the government took the trouble to completely control and approve of all political meetings and public speeches you'd complain they were oppressive wouldn't you?

"Control"? "Approve"? Whose government? What?
http://www.cyberpursuits.com/heckifiknow/rd/images/rd09.jpg
Who's eating this fish?

lets turn it into a NS issue for the sake of arguement

the only way the people of a state could prevent a racist group like the ku klux klan or the BNP "percolate through society sufficiently enough that those in power, as well as the population-at-large, are sympathetic to those views", is to take action against them, either by directly as private citizens taking up arms and beating the hell (Ref:battle of cable street) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cable_Street) out of them, or by letting the government censoring all public speeches/broadcasts and barring them from meeting(ref:holocaust denial) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_Negationism_Law)

so do you allow the racists to continue preaching because its a free country. but insist that they do not represent anyone in the state?

or

do you set up a system of censorship and break up public meetings to combat them?

This is not a competition. It's never been.

"Look, they do it too!" is no excuse.

You're completely missing the point.

When the Jews do it, it's private citizens who don't speak for a government. To say they are the Israeli government would be like saying the KKK speaks for the US.

When the Arabs do it, it is through a state run network or newspaper and is thus a product of the government.

It shouldn't have to be spelled out for you.

lets turn it into a NS issue for the sake of arguement

the only way the people of a state could prevent a racist group like the ku klux klan or the BNP "percolate through society sufficiently enough that those in power, as well as the population-at-large, are sympathetic to those views", is to take action against them, either by directly as private citizens taking up arms and beating the hell (Ref:battle of cable street) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cable_Street) out of them, or by letting the government censoring all public speeches/broadcasts and barring them from meeting(ref:holocaust denial) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_Negationism_Law)

so do you allow the racists to continue preaching because its a free country. but insist that they do not represent anyone in the state?

or

do you set up a system of censorship and break up public meetings to combat them?



Oh, that. *sighs* Okay, I'll play along - but I've been down this particular road so many times on NSG, don't be surprised if my eyes glaze over somewhat when the inevitable finger-pointing and invariable pitchfork-waving commences:

Unfettered freedom of speech vs. the prohibition of hate speech as a reasonable limitation on freedom of speech. I've always sided with the latter. I don't plan to debate it; I am unmoved by the various arguments I've heard in favour of the alternative. Nor do I feel particularly threatened by the prospect of such a law - Canada already has such a law.

When the Jews do it, it's private citizens who don't speak for a government. To say they are the Israeli government would be like saying the KKK speaks for the US.

You're right, it's private citizens who don't speak for a government - but it's the oft-repeated views of private citizens that help mold common perceptions, which in turn influences the policies of government.

So basically, what you're saying is that diffuse, grassroots-level race hatred is comparitively benign, while centralized, authoritarian race hatred is teh evil. Interesting. Though I've yet to be persuaded.

so because the israeli government doesn't censor the racists in its nation its bears some measure of responsibility for them? thats fair enough.

so because the israeli government doesn't censor the racists in its nation its bears some measure of responsibility for them? thats fair enough.

Sounds reasonable to me.

You're right, it's private citizens who don't speak for a government - but it's the oft-repeated views of private citizens that help mold common perceptions, which in turn influences the policies of government.

So basically, what you're saying is that diffuse, grassroots-level race hatred is comparitively benign, while centralized, authoritarian race hatred is teh evil. Interesting. Though I've yet to be persuaded.

I think history can back my point up. The KKK, NATAL, Aryan Nation, and other groups in the US have been spouting their shit for decades with little effect. They are seen as fringe groups and ignored by most in the public.

It's the same in Israel. While there are racists in the Israeli society, the government has actually forbidden some racist parties from taking any type of office.

Now, when the government spouts off the racism, the people are often more likely to take it as truth. The governments in many authoritarian nations have control of the media and are able to fill the print media and airways with a large amount of propoganda. You are right that over time hatred can take root with propadanda. That is more true with governments than grass root campaigns because the government is often trusted more and is in a better position spread it.

Just look at what the Nazis did when they took power. It took them less than a decade to convince the Germans it was OK to commit genocide against the Jews. The feelings of hate never would've been mainstream had the government not sanctioned it.

so because the israeli government doesn't censor the racists in its nation its bears some measure of responsibility for them? thats fair enough.

Welcome to freedom of speech.

I suppose the US is responsible for the KKK then

A professor once made an interesting comment, namely, that everybody is intolerant, they're just intolerant of different things. For example, he is intolerant of certain education policies that seem to forget both the importance of the locality and the necessity of allowing teachers to have a larger voice in determining the courses and how they are taught. He is very vocal about this, and as a result, there are a number of people that have lobbed derogatory comments at him. These include: Opinionated, Intolerant, Devisive, Evil, and others. His response: "You're intolerant of my Intolerance." And he is absolutely correct. I have grown to become intolerant of these people that are intolerant of the intolerent.

The ideas of freedom of expression eventually come to this point: Whose intolerance is more tolerable? The American government is not going to ban the KKK any time soon. Why? Simple. To do so would mean that the government is intolerant of the Klan's own intolerance. However, the KKK, at least these days, publicly (let's not get into what you think they do off the record) follows the law. When they hold parades, they are sure to obtain the necessary permits, planning them in advance, and requesting police protection of their right to march, which they still make use of to this day. Is theirs a message of hate? Yes. Is it a message of Intolerance for any but the Protestant, Natural born Caucasion Americans? Yes. But does the government tolerate them anyways? Yes. The result? The government is still a peg higher than the KKK.

In a similar matter, we now to turn to another question. What merits legal intolerance? The grassroots intolerance argument that Dobbsworld is a perfect point. In this respect, we find that the Canadian law is a law that is intolerant of intolerance. Yet, does the grassroots campaign have more justification than the authoritarian government alternative. To this respect, I will travel into a very, very, very grey interpretation. Namely, that it is a case by case basis. A grassroots campaign that preaches intolerance for political leaders guilty of mass genocide, but nothing else, is obviously more tolerable than a grassroots campaing that advocates the death of every person that has exactly three elder brothers and four younger sisters. Why? Because one is asking you to be intolerant of an institution or group of people whose actions merit this intolerance. The other campaign require arbitrary intolerance against people whom have been born into a state that is, quite probably, not of their own doing.

How about the alternative, namely, government intolerance? To this I will travel to that same criteria. A government intolerant of messages that urge people to do illegal things such as murder and rape is more tolerable than the government that oppresses a person's peaceful and constructive criticism done in a legal manner, such as banning editors from printing opinions about the relative importance of various items on the budget. Again, we see the basic difference of government functioning as it was intended, namely, to keep people safe, as opposed to how it can be subverted, such as preventing a person from communicating an opinion or fact beneficial for the community.

We now find ourselves in the hypothetical situation of the Klan using their rights to gradually take over the country that they live in, and thus spread intolerance. At what point must the government step in and stop the progress of intolerance. Namely, at what point must the government cease to be tolerant of the intolerance. When is intolerance of intolerance allowable? The answer: not found. There is no set answer in stone.

Now, what does all of this have to do with the price of tea in China, or, more appropriately, the right of Israel to exist? Much. Simply stated, I wanted you all to be aware of your own intolerances, and the intolerances of others, an awareness that, sadly, few people seem to remember. Am I asking you all to be like Thomas Jefferson, a slave owner that recognized even his own immorality in his ownership of slaves? Not to the same extent. If everybody was able to recognize the hypocrites within themselves, the world would be a much more tolerant place. Israel's right to exist is based on the will of the people that it serves, namely and chiefly, those that live in Israeli jurisdiction. If it can provide the necessary services of a government in a satisfactory way to a satisfactional degree, then yes, Israel has a right to exist. How high a degree, or what measure of satisfaction, is, and always will be, relative. Given, however, the relative security and basic civil liberties as they are applied, I have no choice but to say that, as a Jeffersonian, or Einsteinian, or Ghandian, Israel has a right to exist.

Even someone with your reasoning skills should be able to realize how different it is.

Flamebait much?

Well point remaining is, whether or not this so called holocaust happened, it is irrelevant. What is relevant is that it has become an excuse for racism, oppression and murder. Zionism is murder.

Well point remaining is, whether or not this so called holocaust happened, it is irrelevant. What is relevant is that it has become an excuse for racism, oppression and murder. Zionism is murder.


That argument is good pause NOT

Well point remaining is, whether or not this so called holocaust happened, it is irrelevant. What is relevant is that it has become an excuse for racism, oppression and murder. Zionism is murder.

Hmm, really.

Zionism is, as far as I am aware, merely the desire for the Jews to have a state in Israel. They were happy with they one they got in 1948. The Arabs were unhappy because they didnt get everything. The Jews here are the ones who were compromising

Hmm, really.

Zionism is, as far as I am aware, merely the desire for the Jews to have a state in Israel. They were happy with they one they got in 1948. The Arabs were unhappy because they didnt get everything. The Jews here are the ones who were compromising

Yet here we are in 2007 and theres civillian colonies being built outside Israels borders.....

WTF have you been smoking. Without Israel we have been enslaved by the Roman Empire, kicked out of every European country, blamed for the Black Death, had blood libel lies told about us, endured the Inquisition, been put in ghettoes, had the ghetto walls torn down 200 years ago and were led to believe that anti-semitism was over, got put in the pale, suffered pogroms, had Hitler come to power, got put in ghettoes again, got put in concentration camps, andgot sent to extermination camps. GMAFB. The Jews are only safe now because Israel and its nukes will fuck up anyone who tries to do what Hitler did to the Jews.
[/QUOTE]

Your logic is inverted... The present state exists because the later events were put to an end, not the other way around as you have attempted to assert.

You're also continually failing to understand the difference between a people and a government.... The Government of Israel (as a state)does not possess, and never has possessed any right (that is an inherant right) to exist; the PEOPLE who live within the boundries of that state are the ones who allots the state its reasons for existance, outlined in its obligations upon its people. If the state does not fulfill those obligations upon its people, it forfeits the reasons for its existance, and the people (in their right of existance) possess the right to overthrow the present state and replace it with one which would fulfill its obligations. No state anywhere on this globe (including the present state of Israel) has the right to exist, merely the allowance (by its people) to exist.

And there are far more examples of anti-semitism in the Arab world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabs_and_antisemitism

You lose

Arab-Antisemitism? Arabs are semites, one could wonder how a semite could be anti-semitic.

Arab-Antisemitism? Arabs are semites, one could wonder how a semite could be anti-semitic.

Arabs are semites, but the term anti-semitism is a term created in the 19th century to describe racism against Jews and Jews alone.

Dictionary.com is your friend.

They have a right to exist in that they aren't going anywhere, especially not with US backing. Other than they don't have a "right" to existence.

If there's a difference, it's superficial at best - and, as I maintain, only one of degree. So, the Klan itself isn't in power - okay. So what happens when the views of the Klan, having been allowed the time to percolate through society sufficiently enough that those in power, as well as the population-at-large, are sympathetic to those views?

I'm not persuaded there's any palpable difference, as the end result is very much the same.

There is allowing it to be said and allowing it to be done

A government may allow people to say racist things, but they won't allow them to do things to people because of their race (EG anti-discrimination laws, anit-encitement to hatered laws)

Yet here we are in 2007 and theres civillian colonies being built outside Israels borders.....

And here we are in 2007 and when those civilians have left, the Palestainan terrorists resume their rocket attacks, even during a cease fire.

And here we are in 2007 and when those civilians have left, the Palestainan terrorists resume their rocket attacks, even during a cease fire.


Left where? Arab East Jerusalem, the West Bank? And didn't we show that construction is ongoing?

"At 6:30 last Friday morning, two cars waited for soldiers to open the checkpoint at the eastern entrance to Ramallah. This checkpoint is only for diplomats, Palestinian VIPs, journalists, employees of international organizations and anyone whose presence is welcomed by the military authorities. The checkpoint obligates thousands of villagers living in the vicinity to travel from 30 to 60 kilometers, instead of three to four km, so the settlers of Beit El and Psagot and of the outposts of Migron and Givat Asaf can exercise their landlordism. "
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=808830

Left where? Arab East Jerusalem, the West Bank? And didn't we show that construction is ongoing?



How about Gaza? That place has without a doubt gotten worse since Israel left. Israel is in the West Bank right now and almost no attacks against Israel are able to originate from that area. Israel isn't in Gaza and that is where the attacks against Israel are coming from.

Given that track record, do you see Israel pulling out of the West Bank in the near future?

Probably not. And the real kicker here is that if things don't improve in regards to the Gaza situation, Israel will have to reoccupy it in order to stop the Qassams.

How about Gaza? That place has without a doubt gotten worse since Israel left. Israel is in the West Bank right now and almost no attacks against Israel are able to originate from that area. Israel isn't in Gaza and that is where the attacks against Israel are coming from.

Given that track record, do you see Israel pulling out of the West Bank in the near future?

Probably not. And the real kicker here is that if things don't improve in regards to the Gaza situation, Israel will have to reoccupy it in order to stop the Qassams.

In other words, the Israeli citizenry are paying the piper for the past mistakes of the Israeli state. This does not support your case. It's only more evidence against Israel's current foreign policy.

In other words, the Israeli citizenry are paying the piper for the past mistakes of the Israeli state. This does not support your case. It's only more evidence against Israel's current foreign policy.

The more accurate depiction is that the people in Gaza had their needs met by Israel. Israel did a poor job of it, but Hamas and Fatah do a much poorer job as any money they get goes to private bank accounts (Arafat had 4-11 billion) or is spent to kill Israelis and not better the conditions in Gaza.

The 2 factions are now killing eachother though. Just yesterday there was more violence again between Fatah and Hamas.

If you support Israel you are a troll on this forum.

Put it like that then I'm definately a Troll... A Happy little Troll... :D

I apologize in advance for not reading the majority of this thread.

I agree with the point that the nation state, as a political entity is a problematic issue.
But When I look at the world, I see that many distinguish a people as equal to the nation, meaning that saying "have no right to exist" means inadvertently that the inhabitants have no right to exist.
Which makes sense, cause the formation of the nation state comes as a tool to give people of a certain group a means to distinguish themselves.

I ask just this, can one honestly believe that saying "have no right to exist" cannot be interpreted as "have no right to live"?