Trending Topics:

How to answer the question, ‘Do you recognize Israel’s right to exist?’

Opinion
on 82 Comments

When anti-Zionists discuss the Middle East, the topic of Israel’s existence rarely arises.  It’s almost exclusively a pro-Israel talking point.  We’re focused on national liberation, on surviving repression, on strategies of resistance, on recovering subjugated histories, on the complex (and sometimes touchy) relationships among an Indigenous population disaggregated by decades of aggression.  That a colonial state—or any state, really—possesses no ontological rights is an unspoken assumption.

“Do you recognize Israel’s right to exist?” pretends to honor the downtrodden, but it is an altogether different proposition, transforming sophisticated ideas of liberation into a crude test of political respectability.  Prioritizing the state as worthy of relief, as something to which we automatically owe deference, subsumes life to the imperatives of capital.

The fundamental goal of the question is to attribute a sinister position to dissidents.  It accomplishes that goal even when the dissidents haven’t promoted destruction.  Mere defense of Palestinian life is enough to evoke the settler’s existential fear.  For people socialized into orthodoxy, Israel is synonymous with progress, technology, and production.  Affirming its existence is an endorsement of the status quo; no matter how ludicrous as a moral premise, in capitalist spaces it is a perfectly sensible demand.

There are plenty of reasons to eschew the demand.  The first reason is practical:  we don’t advocate for the destruction of human communities, but of ideologies conducive to racism and inequality.  It’s both insidious and unethical to conflate Jewish people (of any national origin) with the existence of a violent, rapacious polity.  That sort of conflation is a grave disservice to activists and intellectuals devoted to a better world—and to the communities for whom a better world is a necessity of survival.  Nobody has ever asked me to affirm another nation-state’s existence, a demand I would likewise decline. Zionists constantly single out Israel for special treatment.

Moreover, it is remarkably impudent for champions of a state founded on the destruction of Palestine and now in its eighth decade of ethnic cleansing to ask the victims of its malevolence for recognition.  Even worse, recognition is only the tip of the demand.  We’re also being asked to legitimize apartheid and ignore the routine commission of war crimes.  The upshot is to validate Israel as a militarized object of Western imperialism—in other words, to affirm the existence of a deeply antihuman entity.

Let’s consider the demand in context of North America, where it’s most frequently issued.  Those of us operating in this geography haven’t the authority to abdicate nearly 80 (and arguably 100) percent of historical Palestine.  It’s not any Westerner’s prerogative to relinquish Palestine under the pressure of a spuriously humanistic insistence by Zionists that their perfidy be excused because it will somehow make us more responsible citizens.

I am happy, eager even, to affirm the right of Jewish people to live in peace and security, wherever that may be, a right all humans deserve in no particular order of worthiness.  But I won’t ratify Israel’s bloody founding or its devotion to racial supremacy.  Ultimately, when Zionists demand that you affirm Israel’s right to exist, what they really seek is affirmation of Palestinian nonexistence.

Beyond these philosophical, political, and practical factors, there’s a worthy psychological reason to refuse the demand.  Zionists are the bully in this supposed conflict and enjoy nearly universal support in centers of political and economic power.  They have more funds, access to corporate media, and the backing of the US military. Palestinians, however, hold one form of power that doesn’t require money, platforms, or weaponry:  the ability to withhold legitimacy from Israel.  It is a small power, without a material apparatus, but it is power, nevertheless, one that only a fool or opportunist would relinquish.  When an oppressor makes submission the basis of civic responsibility, insolence is the only dignified response.

A version of this post first appeared on Steven Salaita’s website

Steven Salaita

Steven Salaita's most recent book is Inter/Nationalism: Decolonizing Native America and Palestine.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

82 Responses

  1. eljay on December 10, 2019, 11:53 am

    … ‘Do you recognize Israel’s right to exist?’

    Answer:

    I recognize that Israel exists, but that it exists as a deliberately and unapologetically colonialist, (war) criminal and religion-supremacist state.

    Do you recognize Israel’s right to exist as a colonialist, (war) criminal and (religion-) supremacist state? I don’t.

    I believe that every state – including Israel – should:
    – exist as the secular and democratic state of and for all of its citizens, immigrants, expats and refugees, equally;
    – strive to respect, uphold and defend international laws and human rights; and
    – be held accountable for the (war) crimes it commits.

    Do you agree? If not, why not?

    • Misterioso on December 11, 2019, 10:07 am

      @eljay, etal

      This question has long since been dealt with in a lengthy paper written by Joseph Massad, Professor of Modern Arab Politics and Intellectual History at Columbia University, New York.

      https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/05/20115684218533873.html

      “The rights of Israel”

      “Israel’s ‘lawfare’ against the Palestinian people is rooted in a fictitious narrative of having a ‘right’ to exist. By Professor Joseph Massad, 2011.

      EXCERPT:
      “The Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, now entering their twentieth year had been hailed from the start as historic, having inaugurated a ‘peace process’ that would resolve what is commonly referred to as the ‘Palestinian-Israeli conflict.’ For the Palestinians and the international community, represented by the United Nations and the myriad resolutions its Security Council and General Assembly issued since 1948, what was to be negotiated were the colonisation of land, the occupation of territory and population, and the laws that stipulate ethnic and religious discrimination in Israel, which, among other things, bar Palestinian refugees from returning to their land and confiscate their property. In their struggle against these Israeli practises, Palestinian leaders, whether in Israel, the Occupied Territories, or the diaspora, have always invoked these rights based on international law and UN resolutions, which Israel has consistently refused to implement or abide by since 1948. Thus for the Palestinians, armed by the UN and international law, the negotiations were precisely aimed to end colonisation, occupation, and discrimination.

      “On the other hand, one of the strongest and persistent arguments that the Zionist movement and Israel have deployed since 1948 in defence of the establishment of Israel and its subsequent policies is the invocation of the rights of Israel, which are not based on international law or UN resolutions. This is a crucial distinction to be made between the Palestinian and Israeli claims to possession of ‘rights.’ While the Palestinians invoke rights that are internationally recognised, Israel invokes rights that are solely recognised at the national level by the Israeli state itself. For Zionism, this was a novel mode of argumentation as, in deploying it, Israel invokes not only juridical principles but also moral ones.

      “In this realm, Israel has argued over the years that Jews have a right to establish a state in Palestine, that they have a right to establish a ‘Jewish’ state in Palestine, that this state has a ‘right to exist,’ and that it has a ‘right to defend itself,’ which includes its subsidiary right to be the only country in the region to possess nuclear weapons, that it has the ‘right’ to inherit all the biblical land that the Jewish God promised it, and a ‘right’ to enact laws that are racially and religiously discriminatory in order to preserve the Jewish character of the state, otherwise articulated in the more recent formula of ‘a Jewish and democratic state.’ Israel has also insisted that its enemies, including the Palestinian people, whom it dispossesses, colonises, occupies, and discriminates against, must recognise all these rights, foremost among them its ‘right to exist as a Jewish state,’ as a condition for and a precursor to peace.

      “Rights are non-negotiable”
      “Israel began to invoke this right with vehemence in the last decade after the Palestine Liberation Organisation had satisfied its earlier demand in the 1970s and 80s that the Palestinians recognise its ‘right to exist.’ In international law, countries are recognised as existing de facto and de jure, but there is no notion that any country has a ‘right to exist,’ let alone that other countries should recognise such a right. Nonetheless, the modification by Israel of its claim that others had to recognise its ‘right to exist’ to their having to recognise ‘its right to exist as Jewish state’ is pushed most forcefully at present, as it goes to the heart of the matter of what the Zionist project has been all about since its inception, and addresses itself to the extant discrepancy between Israel’s own understanding of its rights to realise these Zionist aims and the international community’s differing understanding of them. This is a crucial matter, as all these rights that Israel claims to possess, but which are not recognised internationally, translate into its rights to colonise Palestinian land, to occupy it, and to discriminate against the non-Jewish Palestinian people.”

      • mondonut on December 11, 2019, 1:24 pm

        @Misterioso , This is a crucial matter, as all these rights that Israel claims to possess, but which are not recognised internationally…

        It is also a crucial matter, one that Massad chooses to ignore, is that Israel has not demanded that their right to exist be recognized internationally. Israel, as part of negotiating with the entity of Palestine, can ask whatever they want of the other party. This includes a right to exist or recognition as the Jewish State. The Palestinian entity also has the right to accede to these demands or deny them.

        While there is nothing in international law that provides a state the right to exist, there is also nothing in international law that prevents Palestine from choosing to offer that to Israel.

      • echinococcus on December 11, 2019, 4:16 pm

        The Nut is still eating his own foot.
        He just wrote in so many words “Israel’s” logo: Might is Right.

      • mondonut on December 11, 2019, 6:56 pm

        @echinococcus He just wrote in so many words “Israel’s” logo: Might is Right.

        Nope. I did not. But I suppose inventing that nonsense is easier than addressing my comment.

      • echinococcus on December 12, 2019, 1:15 am

        The Nut:
        “@echinococcus He just wrote in so many words “Israel’s” logo: Might is Right.
        Nope. I did not. But I suppose inventing that nonsense is easier than addressing my comment.”

        He did, too, and I am.

        There is his dodoo, again:

        “Israel, as part of negotiating with the entity of Palestine, can ask whatever they want of the other party. ”
        Without even having the right to be there, let alone that of asking anything from the owners of the place…

      • Misterioso on December 13, 2019, 10:55 am

        @mondonut

        The Palestinians have long since agreed to accept the existence of “Israel” within the boundaries of the 1949 armistice agreements.

    • Blake on January 12, 2020, 8:52 pm

      @mondonut: You wrote: “It is also a crucial matter, one that Massad chooses to ignore, is that Israel has not demanded that their right to exist be recognized internationally”

      In international law its only Palestinians who can give ‘Israel’ the legitimacy they crave. No one else. Their enterprise is on stolen ethnically cleansed Palestinian soil. That’s basic common sense.

  2. JustJessetr on December 10, 2019, 3:15 pm

    You don’t have to recognize Israel’s right to exist, just like you don’t have to recognize any other state’s. But it’s a dead end starting point for an argument. Israel exists, it’s a country, and it has standing according to any working standard of international law. Anyone who can’t deal with this is simply spending an enormous amount of energy in the wrong area and living in an echo chamber inside a pipe dream.

    If you want to help Palestinians by wiping out Israel’s right to exist, you will inevitably confront wiping out or denying Palestine’s right to exist. And chances are, denying Palesrine will happen first which leaves Israel standing like it is now, just more powerful.

    • Talkback on December 10, 2019, 5:18 pm

      JustJessetr: “You don’t have to recognize Israel’s right to exist, just like you don’t have to recognize any other state’s. But it’s a dead end starting point for an argument. Israel exists, it’s a country.”

      You could have made exactly the same pseudo legitimizing argument for Nazi Germany or South Africa under Apartheid.

      JustJessetr: “If you want to help Palestinians by wiping out Israel’s right to exist, you will inevitably confront wiping out or denying Palestine’s right to exist. ”

      Not at all. Palestine was a state under mandate until 1948 and the people of Palestine had and still have the right to see their state released into indepence in the whole territory. Jewish seperartists didn’t have any right to secede from Palestine without the consent of the people of Palestine. They didn’t even ask everyone within its territory. That’s why they had to resort to war and to create it and expulsion to create a fake majority which makes it an Apartheid state.

    • annie on December 10, 2019, 6:35 pm

      Israel exists, …. Anyone who can’t deal with this is simply spending an enormous amount of energy in the wrong area

      no one is being asked to recognize israel exists, but nice diversion. we’re being asked to spend enormous energy in the wrong area, recognizing a *right* that doesn’t exist for any state, a so called *right to exist*.

      what a waste of energy.

      • Mooser on December 10, 2019, 6:42 pm

        Supporting Israel’s “right to exist” means providing support to Israel.
        Since Israel has no ability to exist without being propped up.

      • eljay on December 10, 2019, 6:54 pm

        || annie: … no one is being asked to recognize israel exists, but nice diversion. … ||

        JustaJester is (surprise, surprise!) being a clown. Then again, maybe he isn’t being a Zionist hypocrite and he has actually defended Iran’s “right to exist” as an Islamic state or North Korea’s “right to exist” as a shit-hole dictatorship.

      • JustJessetr on December 11, 2019, 6:07 am

        Annie,

        Your (lame) sarcasm always shows you have conceded the point without having to say it outright. And I know this won’t be printed, but I know you read it, and it really really bugs you that I outsmart you every time by just sticking to facts.

      • annie on December 11, 2019, 6:34 am

        i wasn’t being sarcastic. there are no *rights of existence* for states and declaring i’ve conceded and that you ‘really really’ bug me and ‘outsmarted me every time’ isn’t a counter argument, it’s merely wishful thinking.

      • Talkback on December 11, 2019, 6:48 am

        Annie: “i wasn’t being sarcastic. … and that you ‘really really’ bug me and ‘outsmarted me every time’ [is] merely wishful thinking.”

        How dare you! It’s far to early to not feed his narcissistic delusions at this point of his development. I will report this misconduct and make sure that you will lose your license!

        @JustJessetr
        Just think about soft, fury balls and how comforting its feels to gently stroke them.

      • mondonut on December 11, 2019, 1:07 pm

        @Annie, no one is being asked to recognize israel exists, but nice diversion. we’re being asked…

        We who? Has Israel asked you personally to recognize their right to exist? Who, other than the Palestinians, have been asked to recognize the right of Israel to exist?

      • JustJessetr on December 12, 2019, 9:14 pm

        Ah! Another reason why Israel gets stronger and Palestine gets weaker.

        Palestine’s supporters…

        @Eljay – …waste time pulling comparisons to Nazis and Apartheid SA out of their butts as

        @ annie – …can’t recognize that sarcasm hurts their own argument rather than bolsters it

        @ Talkback – … fritter away time envisioning Zionists masturbating.

        Please wake up, you three. Your tactics only help Israel.

      • Talkback on December 13, 2019, 7:26 am

        JustJessetr: “Ah! Another reason why Israel gets stronger and Palestine gets weaker. … Please wake up, you three. Your tactics only help Israel.”

        The delusions in this one are very strong. Need more fury balls?

      • eljay on December 13, 2019, 8:15 am

        || JustaJester: … @Eljay – …waste time pulling comparisons to Nazis and Apartheid SA out of their butts … ||

        You pulled that out of your butt just now. I hope it hurt.

  3. Citizen on December 10, 2019, 3:21 pm

    Where is it said any country has the right to exist?

    • mondonut on December 11, 2019, 12:59 pm

      @Citizen , Where is it said any country has the right to exist?

      Nowhere. Conversely, where is it said that any country does not have the right to exist? Nowhere as well.

  4. JaapBo on December 10, 2019, 3:51 pm

    You could safely answer “yes!”
    The real question is whether Israel has got a right to be racist. It doesn’t of course, but that means that Palestinian refugees of the Nakba have a right of return, and Israel does not have a RIGHT to be a JEWISH state.

    • mondonut on December 11, 2019, 1:02 pm

      JaapBo …and Israel does not have a RIGHT to be a JEWISH state.

      And the rights of Afghanistan,Iran, Mauritania, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Yemen to be Islamic states?

      • eljay on December 11, 2019, 2:54 pm

        || mon donut: JaapBo …and Israel does not have a RIGHT to be a JEWISH state.

        And the rights of Afghanistan,Iran, Mauritania, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Yemen to be Islamic states? ||

        None of them has a right to be an Islamic state or any other sort of supremacist state.

        But you can always count on a Zionist like donut to compare his and/or his co-collectivists’ actions to acts of injustice and immorality committed by others to take pride in the fact that his and/or his co-collectivists’ actions aren’t quite so bad.

      • eljay on December 11, 2019, 3:23 pm

        || eljay: … acts of injustice and immorality committed by others to take pride in the fact … ||

        Correction: … acts of injustice and immorality committed by others and to take pride in the fact …

      • Talkback on December 11, 2019, 5:39 pm

        mondonut: “And the rights of Afghanistan,Iran, Mauritania, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Yemen to be Islamic states?”

        The fact that these states considers themselves to be islamic states does not mean that they are only the state of their muslims citizens or that they only consider muslims to be their nationals. These states are still the states of all of their citizens and any of their citizens belong to the nation of these states whether they are muslim or not. Iran for example is an islamic state, but the Iranian Jews belong to the people/nation of Iran, too.

        Israel on the other hand is only the state of its Jewish citizens. Only its Jews are considered to be its nationals. Only Jews belong to the nation of Israel. According to the supreme court of Israel an Israeli nation doesn’t even exist.

        And contray to Israel not one of the islamic states needs to keep people of different faith or heritage expelled to maintain being an state dominated by muslims. No other country in the world needs to do what Israel does which is blatant Apartheid.

  5. Ellen on December 10, 2019, 3:54 pm

    Always found the statement, “Israel has a right to exists!” bizarre. No country has a “right” to exist. Borders of countries or “Nations”s, if you wil, are constructs based on abstractions of the moment. A country exist until it does not.

    A Nation or National identity is another construct of a people. A people changes, evolves and exist as a people until they change in identity, self understanding, move on. Or until they simply do not exists as a separate people any longer.

    Do the Phoneticians as a Nation exist any longer? Are the Mayans around? What happened to the Etruscan Nation? They had rights too!

    Has zip to do with “rights.” Geesh.

    • RoHa on December 10, 2019, 7:16 pm

      Phoneticians certainly exist, but perhaps not yet as a Nation.

      As one who came top of his phonetics class at the University of Reading, I think that Phoneticians have a right to Phonetic state where the oppressed phoneticians of the world could be safe from the persecution of the morphologists and syntacticians.

      • echinococcus on December 11, 2019, 12:51 am

        “… a right to Phonetic state where the oppressed phoneticians of the world could be safe from the persecution of the morphologists and syntacticians.”

        Not worth persecuting. A smirk is enough to trigger their paranoia.

    • RoHa on December 10, 2019, 7:35 pm

      The list of states, nations, empires, and “peoples” that have ceased to exist is extremely long. Most people would not recognize three quarters of the names. Modern Germans know that East Germany and Yugoslavia no longer exist, but they are likely to be a bit vague about the Majapahit Empire. Indonesians will have a better grasp on that, but they will be less well-informed about Savoy and the Duchy of Masovia.

      Support the Scythian Liberation Front!

  6. bcg on December 10, 2019, 4:03 pm

    I’m 99% certain that the U.S. doesn’t recognize Israels “right to exist” – there is no document sitting in some drawer in the State Department that states that the United States recognizes Israel’s “right to exist”, because that phrase means nothing in the language of modern diplomatic relations. There may very will be a document stating that the U.S. recognizes the state of Israel, there may well be documents that lay out various trade agreements and specify diplomatic relations with Israel, but nowhere is there any language about “right to existence”, and I doubt that language appears in any legal document that governs relations between any two states in the world.

    I can’t dig up the reference now, but I recall reading that when G.W. Bush heard that Netanyahu wanted the Palestinians to recognize Israels “right to exist” he laughed – he knew that requirement was just a way to throw sand in the peace process.

    • mondonut on December 11, 2019, 1:09 pm

      @bcg , I’m 99% certain that the U.S. doesn’t recognize Israels “right to exist”

      Has Israel requested that of the U.S. ?

  7. Nathan on December 10, 2019, 9:18 pm

    It’s really a very simple question, and it’s not too difficult to give a simple, straight-to-the-point answer. When you ask an anti-Israel person if Israel has a right to exist, obviously the answer is “no”.

    In the above article, we hear that “the upshot is to validate Israel as a militarized object of Western imperialism—in other words, to affirm the existence of a deeply antihuman entity”. It’s obvious from such a point of view that the author wishes to express the opinion that Israel should not have been founded and it shouldn’t exist. So, just say so. Why do we need the pretense that the question (“does Israel have the right to exist”) is an illegitimate question?

    I don’t know why it’s so difficult for an anti-Israel intellectual to understand someone else’s intentions. I would humbly suggest that you ask a pro-Israel activist what is the intention of the question: “Does Israel have the right to exist?” Don’t assume that your take on the question (“affirming its existence is an endorsement of the status quo”) is the true intention.

    Here’s a typical debate. The anti-Israel activist raises a collection of grievances. The pro-Israel activist hears the grievances and wonders if the grievances are the true agenda for solving the problems. In other words, would the rectification of these grievances be satisfactory from the point of view of the anti-Israel activist, or is there some other issue hiding behind the grievances? So, out comes the question: “Does Israel have the right to exist?” Assuming that the anti-Israel activist is an honest person, the answer will be “no”. And now that pro-Israel activist understands that it’s not really about these particular grievances. Rectifying these grievances isn’t going to be the solution that the anti-Israel activist has in mind. The grievances are just a facade for another agenda.

    Not too long ago, I had a discussion with someone who claimed that “the Partition Plan was unfair”. The Jews of Palestine only owned 5% (or whatever) of the land, but the Partition Plan granted them 55% (or whatever) of the country. So, I asked if it would have been acceptable and fair that the Jews could have their state on the 5% of the land. The answer was “no”, of course (because the person opposed the founding of a Jewish state, period). So, what’s the point of raising the grievance of land ownership when your grievance is that there shouldn’t be a Jewish state?

    A Palestinian, by the way, will give an honest answer (i.e. “no”) when asked if Israel has a right to exist, and he will admit that fixing all the grievances that he brings to your attention won’t make the slightest difference. It’s just a figment of Steven Salaita’s imagination that a Palestinian’s non-answer is a small power that shouldn’t be relinquished. Palestinians do answer the question.

    • bcg on December 11, 2019, 12:08 am

      No, Nathan, the “right to exist” – when applied to any country at all – is a 100% meaningless phrase. It sounds as if it should carry some weight, it sounds intuitively like it should mean something, but it doesn’t.

      • Nathan on December 11, 2019, 5:50 pm

        bcg – You’re right. The issue of the right to exist is in fact meaningless. The issue is part of the propaganda war, and hence the question comes up in debates. The right to exist is certainly not a topic of discussion in diplomatic circles. A state comes into being, and that’s that. It’s a state, and there’s no debate if it had a right to come into being. However in the anti-Israel crowd, there is a claim that the Jews did not have the right to found Israel and that the State of Israel is “illegitimate”. So, obviously, one hears the opposite argument as well.

        As I tried to point out, asking someone if Israel has the right to exist is only meant to clarify the parameters of an ideological debate. Are we discussing the issues that need to be resolved in order to establish peace, or are we just trying to “prove” that Israel shouldn’t be?

        In anti-Israel circles, it’s just unthinkable that the conflict will be resolved and the State of Israel continues to exist. Most anti-Israel activists understand that it is a propaganda mistake to state in so many words that the goal is the undoing of Israel, because the general public just won’t go for it. So, the anti-Israel presentation is always raising grievances and grievances while NEVER promising that solving such grievances would mean that the conflict has been resolved. Therefore the pro-Israel activist might ask in return if Israel has the right to exist. It’s not that Israel’s right to exist is really an issue for analysis. It isn’t. It’s just a question that is meant to clarify the true intentions of the anti-Israel presentation. And, since it is a propaganda mistake to admit that Israel shouldn’t be, quite often (like in the above article) you won’t get an answer.

      • eljay on December 11, 2019, 7:03 pm

        || Nathan: … in the anti-Israel crowd, there is a claim that the Jews did not have the right to found Israel … ||

        The intention of Zionists (and not “the Jews”, as you so anti-Semitically put it) was to establish as large as possible a religion-supremacist state in geographic Palestine and at the expense of its indigenous population. The Zionists (or, as you so anti-Semitically put it, “the Jews”) had no right to commit such an act of injustice and immorality. No-one does.

      • Talkback on December 12, 2019, 1:38 am

        Nathan: “However in the anti-Israel crowd, there is a claim that the Jews did not have the right to found Israel and that the State of Israel is “illegitimate”. ”

        And the best thing about it is that the pro-Israel crowd, including you, has not been able to refute their arguments or to provide an y universal principle that could legitimate this founding. And you keep failing and failing and failing … Hasbara has totally collapsed. LOL.

        Nathan: “Are we discussing the issues that need to be resolved in order to establish peace, or are we just trying to “prove” that Israel shouldn’t be?”

        How does one resolve an issue with a regime that can only exist by exercising Apartheid and violating human rights and international law? You simply dismantle this regime and restore the rights of those who have been suffering under its control. And that brings up the question what is legal/legitimate and what not. But you need to circumvent this question, because for the likes of you “peace” means that Palestinians should give up their rights and 80% of their land that was flodded with alien colonists and that the settler Apartheid state should be allowed to violate these rights forever.

        Nathan: “So, the anti-Israel presentation is always raising grievances and grievances while NEVER promising that solving such grievances would mean that the conflict has been resolved.”

        Again by using the word “grievances” the racist Zionist “Nathan” dehumanizes Palestinians and their legitimate quest for restoring their rights, as if they would simply complain about unsatisfactory working conditions. Not even the worst Nazis ever claimed that Jews under their control had only “grievances”. And he is lying as usual, because restoring all of the Palestinians rights according to human rights,, including the right to return and to equality, and international law would be obviously an end of the conflict which only exists because Jews have been violationg their fundamentls rights for a century (initially with the help of Great Britian) to create an Apartheid state.

    • annie on December 11, 2019, 4:46 am

      Here’s a typical debate. The anti-Israel activist raises a collection of grievances. The pro-Israel activist hears the grievances and wonders if the grievances are the true agenda for solving the problems. In other words, would the rectification of these grievances be satisfactory from the point of view of the anti-Israel activist, or is there some other issue hiding behind the grievances? So, out comes the question: “Does Israel have the right to exist?”

      this is what Ilhan Omar described when she said you couldn’t talk about Palestinian rights because it always turned into a discussion about something else (generally anti semitism, or israel’s so called ‘right to exist’, which is what the discussion is generally directed towards by anti-Palestinians such as nathan).

      ‘When a Palestinian rights activist raises grievance, anti-Palestinians ask: “Does Israel have the right to exist?”’ hence–not only are we directed away from the *grievances* of the colonized, the oppressed, the genocided (ie: https://mondoweiss.net/2019/12/beyond-habeas-viscus-mourning-my-father/) we are also then directed to blame that diversion, that mis-direction, on those who have been ignored! so instead of accepting or believing Palestinians are aggrieved, there’s simply no room to discuss them:

      It’s obvious from such a point of view that the author wishes to express the opinion that Israel should not have been founded and it shouldn’t exist. So, just say so. Why do we need the pretense that the question (“does Israel have the right to exist”) is an illegitimate question?

      Used to distract and evade the very real issue of Palestinian grievances? yes, it’s a totally illegitimate question. It’s obvious from such a point of view that Nathan wishes to express the opinion that Palestinians should have no rights and shouldn’t exist. So, just say so. Why does he need the pretense of that question (“does Israel have the right to exist”)? He doesn’t, it’s merely hasbara.

    • Talkback on December 11, 2019, 5:15 am

      Nathan: “The anti-Israel activist raises a collection of grievances.”

      This is a perfect example of someone who dehumanizes the victims of this conflict and those who want to end their victimhood.

      According to Nathan the Nonjews of Palestine neither have fundamental rights nor do they have rights according to international law. They only have “grievances”. As if the Jews under the Nazi regime only had “grievances” when they became victims of the Holocaust.

      And these vicitims and those who support them restoring these rights are neither the victims of these violations nor those who support restoring their rights, but simply “anti-Israel”. As if everybody who was against the Nazi actions against Jews and supporting their fundamental right were only “anti-Germany” or even “German-haters”.

      Which only leads to the conclusion that according to Nathan Israel and its existence equates with the permanent violation of fundamental human and national rights of Nonjews in Palestine.

      So the question remains if the Zionist regime in Palestine (or the Nazi regime in Germany) has a right to exist. Well, if the Zionist regime can ONLY exist, if it permanently violates the human and international rights of the Nonjews under its control the obvious answer is oviously NO. No regime has a right to exist, if it it can only exist by fundamentally violating the human and national rights of people, because of their faith or heritage.

      UN Report: “Israeli Practices towards the Palestinian People and the Question of Apartheid”
      https://electronicintifada.net/sites/default/files/2017-03/un_apartheid_report_15_march_english_final_.pdf

      Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa report: “Occupation, colonialism, apartheid? A re-assessment of Israel’s practices in the occupied Palestinian territories under international law ”

      http://www.hsrc.ac.za/en/research-data/view/4634

    • eljay on December 11, 2019, 7:31 am

      || Nathan: … Not too long ago, I had a discussion with someone … I asked if it would have been acceptable and fair that the Jews could have their state on the 5% of the land. The answer was “no” … ||

      And rightly so. A “Jewish State”, a state that exists…
      – not for the people in and of the geographic region comprising that state; but, rather,
      – for citizens in and of homelands throughout the world who have chosen to embrace a specific religion-based identity,
      …is necessarily a supremacist construct, and supremacism is as unjust and immoral in a small state as it is in a large one.

    • Donald on December 11, 2019, 8:50 am

      Nathan doesn’t want to answer the question “ Did Zionists have the right to expel Palestinians from their land?” The correct moral answer, btw, is no.

      The question about Israel’s right to exist is nearly always a way to dismiss discussion of what had to happen in order for Israel to be a majority Jewish state.

    • Misterioso on December 11, 2019, 10:19 am

      @Nathan

      “When you ask an anti-Israel person if Israel has a right to exist, obviously the answer is ‘no.'”

      In fact, one does not have to be “anti-Israel” to conclude that “Israel” does not have ‘a right to exist.’ International law and common sense make it so.

  8. vwbeetle on December 10, 2019, 9:53 pm

    While I accept Israel’s existence – it’s not going away – I do not accept it has a “right” to exist because the Jewish claim to Palestine has no rational basis. To suggest that the presence of some sort of Jewish entity in a part of Palestine 2,000 years ago gave Jews from Eastern Europe a right to sovereignty in Palestine in the 20th century is an insult to the intelligence of any rational person. As the King-Crane Commission of Inquiry, sent to Palestine by US President Woodrow Wilson in 1919 stated “For the initial claim, often submitted by Zionist representatives, that they have a “right” to Palestine based on an occupation 2000 years ago, can hardly be seriously considered”.

    • Misterioso on December 11, 2019, 10:26 am

      @vwbeetle

      In their report the commissioners also pointed out that the Balfour Declaration did not call for a Jewish state in Palestine and it could not be achieved without denying the “civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities….” The commissioners also found “…that the Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants…” and recommended that “Jewish immigration should be definitely limited”, that “the project for making Palestine a Jewish commonwealth should be given up” and Palestine should be “included in a united Syrian state, just as other portions of the country…” (Howard, Harry N., The King Crane Commission, Beirut: Khayats, 1963; quoted by Sami Hadawi, Bitter Harvest, pp.17-18.)

      The Commission also reported that the Arabs preferred the United States as their mandatory power with Britain as their second choice. There was no doubt as to where the King-Crane Commission stood regarding the Zionist historical claim to Palestine: “…the initial claim, often submitted by Zionist representatives, that they have a `right’ to Palestine, based on an occupation of two thousand years ago, can hardly be seriously considered.” (“The American King-Crane Commission of Inquiry, 1919” quoted in From Haven to Conquest, p. 217, edited by Whalid Khalidi) Or as Lord Sydenham stated before the British House of Lords on 21 June 1922: “If we are going to admit claims on conquest thousands of years ago, the whole world will have to be turned upside down.” (Hansard)

      The King-Crane Commission also opposed Jewish control of Palestine’s holy places.

  9. Empiricon on December 10, 2019, 11:43 pm

    This question is really simple unless you reject the ideals of the Enlightenment and still hold to “divine right” philosophy. Rights belong to no state. They belong to every individual equally, so any right a state has accrues only from the collective and represented rights of its individual citizens. Everyone living under the control of Israel has a right to exist. But just as the American Confederacy had no right to exist without the consent of ALL those living under its laws and control, Israel has no right to exist without the consent of all those under its control.

  10. Ismail on December 11, 2019, 12:02 am

    Silly question. Countries are not the sorts of things that have rights.
    Humans have rights, and, on some accounts, other animals, too.
    But countries? Attributing rights to them is a category mistake, like awarding rights to corporations.

    All the human beings residing in the areas controlled by Israel have a right to exist. This right follows from their personhood, not from their citizenship or nationality.

    Israel neither possesses nor lacks the right to exist. “Israel has a right to exist” is neither true nor false; it’s simply senseless.

    Now, do Zionists have a right to displace indigenes and steal their land? That’s a legitimate question, and the answer is no. Not even a tiny bit.

  11. echinococcus on December 11, 2019, 12:46 am

    “While I accept Israel’s existence – it’s not going away…”

    Why not? Lots of countries more legitimate than this one did go away, and how (have a look at RoHa’s post, above.) Can you tell me exactly why not this one?

  12. Talkback on December 11, 2019, 5:37 am

    The question if Israel has a right to exist is a diversion tactic.

    It tries to distract from the more fundamental and relevant questions, if everyone under its control has a right to exist as a human being having human and national rights. These rights include the right to citizizenship and the right to return as enshrined in international law including the Convention against the Crime of Apartheid.

    Anybody who claims that Israel has a right to exist simply implies that it has the right to violate the human and national rights of Nonjews as Nonjews to maintain its existence. It means that Jews have the right to expell Nonjews and denationalize them simply because they are not Jews. It means that Jews have the right to colonize any state they like and create a state within this state through war and become a majority through expulsion.

    I’m not surprised at all that not most of the people in this world actually don’t react positively towards these atroticites and exclusivism. Especially not if they are told that they are the actual problem which is framed as “hatred against Jews” to distract from mental attittude that enables atrocities against Nonjews and the violation of their fundamental rights. At the core of this attitude is the view that Nonjews are less than Nonjews or that Jews are the only human beings. Zionist Jews would NEVER treat Jews the same way.

  13. Jackdaw on December 11, 2019, 10:27 am

    Nary a word from Steven about the mistreatment of Christian Arabs by their Muslim brothers.

    Never an explanation from Steven why it was okay for the Hashemites, from Mecca, to come to TransJordan and lord over the natives.

    And speaking of supremacism, who made these Hashemites ‘kings’ anyway? They certainly weren’t the kings of Mecca, where they’d lived for hundreds of years.

    For Jews, Steven has all the answers, for Arabs, very few answers.

    Beep beep.

    • edwardm on December 11, 2019, 4:46 pm

      “the mistreatment of Christian Arabs by their Muslim brothers.” well! let’s here all about it then!
      https://www.ancient-origins.net/ancient-places-asia/why-holiest-shrine-christianity-guarded-two-muslim-families-007843
      beep beep!

    • Talkback on December 11, 2019, 5:52 pm

      Jackdaw: “Nary a word from Steven about the mistreatment of Christian Arabs by their Muslim brothers.”

      Nary a word from Jackdaw about the mistreatment of Christian Arabs by Jews.

      Jackdaw: “And speaking of supremacism, who made these Hashemites ‘kings’ anyway?”

      The same goverment that facilitated the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine. But you don’t you have a problem with that and especially not with supremacism as long as it is Jewish.

  14. Talkback on December 11, 2019, 11:39 am

    As far as I can see nobody so far has made a legitimate claim THAT Israel has a right to exist or why it should have a right to exist. This shows how much Hasbara has collapsed and why there is a rise in replacing this failure with the accusation of antisemitism.

    We can read JustJessetr’s comment who avoids answering this question by pointing out that Israel simply exists. That’s like arguing that it doesn’t matter if something is just or based on morals, but that it only matters that it exists or happens. What a complete meltdown of morality. Imagine someone would argue that it doesn’t matter if the Holocaust was a crime against humanity or not – what matters is that it simply happened, deal with it.

    Now Nathan used to have the same pseudo argument after he couldn’t formulate a single universal principle that could justify the creation of Israel let alone its existence. His morality has deterioted even more and now he’s only condemning those who say that Israel doesn’t have a right to exist without going into the question why this is this case or confronting any arguments. In his mind violations of human rights and international law against the Nonjews of Palestine simply don’t exist. Palestinians have only “grievances” as if they were only complaining about some unsatisfactory living, working or housing conditions. What an immoral and corrupted perversion of thruth and reality. This is acqtually worse than blatant racism against Palestinians.

    • Nathan on December 15, 2019, 4:50 am

      Talkback – There’s no need to justify the founding of Israel or her right to exist. Since you are interested in universal principles, I can phrase the issue in a universal sense: There is no need to justify the founding of any state in the world or its right to exist. States come into being, and that’s the way of the universe.

      Actually, your insistence that Israel must explain its birth and its survival is a non-universal principle.

      • Mooser on December 15, 2019, 11:59 am

        “There’s no need to justify the founding of Israel or her right to exist.”

        Great! Then there is no need to justify Israel’s right to stop existing, or reasons to abandon the Zionist project.
        And nobody needs to justify wanting to destroy Israel, either.

      • RoHa on December 15, 2019, 11:27 pm

        States don’t just appear. Unlike jellyfish and the Milanković cycles, they are not part of the natural order. They are brought into existence by human beings, and usually deliberately. (I have heard that Slovakia was an accident, but it was still a human creation.) The creation and dissolution of states has effects – and very serious effects – on the people in those states and the surrounding states. Those effects can include their legal status and their freedom of travel. Actions with effects of that magnitude need a moral justification.

  15. MHughes976 on December 11, 2019, 11:50 am

    There can’t be a right to do wrong, that’s the most violent of paradoxes. There can’t be a right to act while paying no attention to questions of right and wrong which really arise: that really leads to the same paradox. So there can’t be a right to occupy time and space and to exercise one’s will – to exist – without regard or with clearly insufficient regard to the rights of others in that area. Which is what Israel is impelled by Zionist ideology to do.
    There is still the right, despite one’s wrongdoing, to have others themselves observe moral limits, so that those others cannot stop the wrong being done by means that make everything worse or are scandalously unjust. It is in this limited sense but no other that Israel has a right to continue to exist.

    • eljay on December 11, 2019, 12:44 pm

      || MHughes976: There can’t be a right to do wrong, that’s the most violent of paradoxes. … ||

      I believe that a right to do wrong does exist but only in very limited situations (mostly, if not exclusively, involving self-defence).

      The horribly-misguided belief that the religion-based identity of Jewish grants to those who choose to embrace it the “right” to be supremacists, to have a supremacist state and to do “necessary evil” unto others is not one of those very limited situations.

  16. edwardm on December 11, 2019, 4:40 pm

    When you demand that Palestinians acknowledge the “right” of Israel to exist as a Jewish state, you are asking them to say that they too think Zionism is worth all this “collateral damage”. You are asking them to acknowledge that it was and is morally right to do all the things that were and are necessary for the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine, even though these necessary things include their own displacement, dispossession and disenfranchisement. You are asking them to internalize the fact that they have less right to live freely on their own ancestral lands where they have lived in unbroken continuity for millenia, than an immigrant to the Middle East who, by an accident of birth, happens to have been born into a “preferred” religion.

    While every nation’s tragedies are unique, the fact is that the Palestinians are not the only people who have had their modern national consciousness shaped by catastrophe. African-Americans have been shaped by slavery, Jewish Israelis by the Holocaust, and present-day South Africans by apartheid. But Palestinians are the only people that are told they must recognize the “rightness” of the catastrophe that befell them. And we demand this because, in the U.S., Zionism is the prism through which we look at the Arab-Israeli conflict. For us, Zionism is worthy and normative, and it is very difficult for us to acknowledge that for the people who have been – and inevitably had to be – on the receiving end of it, Zionism is cruel, and violent, and racist. But try to imagine what you would think if you heard someone demand that – in the interests of reconciliation with their former oppressors – African-Americans must acknowledge not only that the slave trade existed, but that it had a “right” to exist. Or that black south Africans must recognize the “right” of apartheid to exist. Or Jews, the Holocaust. Just by describing the scenario, we can see that we would be demanding something grotesque. But we take it for granted that the Palestinians must do it; and condemn them for anti-semitism when they refuse.
    No matter how much you hurt them, the Palestinians are never going to internalize the claim that their individual human rights and their collective national rights are inherently inferior to someone else’s, merely because of their failure to have a Jewish mom. They are never going to tell you that it was all right to dispossess them, just because this will make you feel better about the nagging doubt over your own legitimacy that is eating away at you. Palestinians are willing to reach a negotiated settlement in which the two parties will agree on what terms they will coexist, then legally recognize the existence of each other and the right of each to live in security within the framework they have mutually agreed. That is the only kind of recognition that can realistically be demanded of the Palestinians. They are not going to become Zionists in order to save Israelis from having to confront the skeletons in their cupboard.

    If Israelis feel such a crisis of national legitimacy that they need someone to hug them and tell them that what Zionism has done to the Palestinians doesn’t really matter, they’d better find a therapist to do it, because the Palestinians won’t. No Palestinian is ever going to tell them, “You’re right, I am a lesser breed of human being, of course your rights are superior to mine” which, from a Palestinian perspective, is essentially what recognizing the “right” of Israel to exist as a Jewish state in Palestine entails.

    https://lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com/news/2007/03/eggs_fail_to_re.html

    • Nathan on December 11, 2019, 10:38 pm

      edwardm – No one is demanding that the Palestinians acknowledge the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state. The issue was that the Palestinians will have to recognize the Jewish state in the framework of the “final status” agreement. The Palestinian answer was that they will never recognize the Jewish state, claiming that they have recognized the State of Israel.

      You have given a detailed interpretation of the significance of recognizing the Jewish state, but in reality your understanding is not how the Israelis and the Palestinians understand the issue of recognizing the Jewish state. Both sides understand that the conflict is about the legitimacy of founding a Jewish state in Palestine. The Jewish side, therefore, is saying that the final status agreement is about ending the conflict. The Palestinian side, on the other hand, is saying that the final status agreement is not the end of conflict.

  17. edwardm on December 12, 2019, 12:54 am

    Both sides understand that the conflict is about the legitimacy of founding a Jewish state in Palestine.
    It happened. It needs to dealt with. Legitimate? Don’t be cute.
    As always child killers like you leave out the fact that:
    “Israel’s right to exist” is code for a very specific demand. It isn’t asking the Palestinians to recognize that the state of Israel exists and has the right to security within mutually agreed borders (which is essentially what the PLO has accepted). And it doesn’t mean that the Palestinians must recognize an Israeli state where Jewish and non-Jewish citizens alike enjoy full rights of citizenship (as proposed in the partition resolution of 1947, in which “Jewish Palestine” was essentially a binational state). When Israel and its supporters demand that Palestinians must “recognize Israel’s right to exist” they specifically mean that Palestinians must acknowledge Israel’s “right” to exist as a Jewish state on the lands of former Mandate Palestine.

    Why would that be a problem for Palestinians? Well, bear in mind that when Zionists established their first settlement in Palestine in 1882, the population of the land that they proposed to turn into a Jewish state was not in fact Jewish, but 95% Muslim and Christian Arab. Bear in mind too that throughout the twentieth century, Palestinians maintained one of the highest birthrates on earth. So even though the proponents of a Jewish state managed in mid-century to create a Jewish majority by expelling large numbers of Arabs, within a couple of generations they are – even without allowing the expelled population to return – once again facing the prospect of a Palestinian majority. So creating a Jewish state in Palestine comes down to an endless battle to gerrymander a Jewish majority where one does not naturally exist.
    (you could have just read the article)

  18. Vera Gottlieb on December 12, 2019, 10:39 am

    Of course it has a right to exist. But so too have all Palestinians.

    • echinococcus on December 12, 2019, 9:19 pm

      Vera Gottlieb,

      What do you mean, “Of course it has a right to exist”?
      It had no right to start existing in the first place.
      So please explain why it should have a right to continue being!

      Propaganda does a number on everyone’s brains.

      The Zionist entity is illegitimate means it was started against all law and by ignoring everyone else’s rights, especially that of Palestine’s owners. It is still illegitimate and still violating every known right, so it has no right to exist, period.

      • JustJessetr on December 13, 2019, 5:29 pm

        @echinococcus.

        “It had no right to start existing in the first place.”

        And this, folks, is exactly how Zionists hear, “Israel doesn’t have a right to exist.”. Even when you lay down a plausible deniability like, “Well, no nation has a right to exist.” Tell any member of any nation – China, Chad, the Chippewa – that they don’t have a right to exist and they will stand against you.

        Time to change tactics. All your arguments, ALL of them, are making Palestinians weaker by the day.

      • eljay on December 13, 2019, 7:35 pm

        || JustaJester: … Tell any member of any nation – China, Chad, the Chippewa – that they don’t have a right to exist and they will stand against you. … ||

        No state – not even Israel – has a right to exist as any type of supremacist or human rights-abusing state.

        But it seems that you do in fact believe that China has a “right to exist” as an oppressive Communist regime, that Iran has a “right to exist” as a repressive Islamic State and that North Korea has a “right to exist” as a brutal dictatorship.

        Interesting, but not at all surprising.

      • RoHa on December 13, 2019, 11:46 pm

        “Tell any member of any nation – China, Chad, the Chippewa – that they don’t have a right to exist and they will stand against you.”

        What a pile of confusion!

        We are saying that states do not have a right to exist. China does not have a right to exist. Chad does not have a right to exist.

        The Chippewa are a tribe, not a state, so it doesn’t apply to them.

        But saying that states do not have a right to exist does not mean that this or that state should be disbanded. It simply means that, if there are reasons why a state should be disbanded, the claimed “right to exist” cannot be used to argue against disbanding the state.

        And it does not mean that the members of the state – the individual human beings – do not have a right to exist.

      • RoHa on December 13, 2019, 11:47 pm

        “Time to change tactics. All your arguments, ALL of them, are making Palestinians weaker by the day.”

        Could you recommend tactics that will make the Palestinians stronger?

      • echinococcus on December 14, 2019, 1:46 am

        “Just” Jesse pretends to have a major reading comprehension problem.

        China, Chad are not a society of bloodthirsty, genocidal alien colonial settlers on the territory of their victims. Or if they are, that is shrouded by the mists of time. The Chippewa are the negligible and powerless remnants of a colonial settler genocide that “Just” Jesse and his merry band of Zionists are emulating, trying to achieve the same with regard to the Palestinians under our very eyes, in plain sight and in the 21st century.

        Of course Zionist invaders do not belong anywhere in Palestine.Duh. It’s not Eljay and Co.’s endless repetition of “pre-67 equal rights” nonsense with no argument in support that will make invaders in any way legitimate.

        “Time to change tactics” says the “Just”Zionist. Very right. More like change strategy, and for one thing , how about helping those who are trying to start really fighting again, against the Zionists including their Palestinian puppet executioners and their “antisemitism” witch-hunting pseudo-solidarity plants.

      • echinococcus on December 14, 2019, 1:53 am

        Eljay,

        At the speed you’re driving, the only country that will seem justified in your eyes may well end up being the good old Ro… ooops, US Empire.

      • Talkback on December 14, 2019, 6:53 am

        JustJessetr: “And this, folks, is exactly how Zionists hear, “Israel doesn’t have a right to exist.”. Even when you lay down a plausible deniability like, “Well, no nation has a right to exist.”

        There is a difference between the fact that no state has a right to exist on the one hand and that Jews had no right to create a state within Palestine on the other.

        JustJessetr: “Time to change tactics. All your arguments, ALL of them, are making Palestinians weaker by the day.”

        Your delusions have always been a sign of weakness. That and your failure to make a case for Israel based on universal principles.

      • JustJessetr on December 14, 2019, 5:32 pm

        @ Echinoccocus

        “China, Chad are not a society of bloodthirsty, genocidal alien colonial settlers on the territory of their victims.”

        And this, folks, is exactly what Israelis hear behind BDS’s so-called progressivism. Armchair purists who lives in the US on stolen land proposing others do something he will never do himself.

        You’re not kidding anybody. You never have. But maybe your pristine morality can pass the blockade and can be eaten by Gaza’s children.

      • echinococcus on December 15, 2019, 12:58 am

        “But maybe your pristine morality can pass the blockade and can be eaten by Gaza’s children.”

        Nope. Nothing will ever pass the blockade as long as Zionists are there and the Palestinians are alive. The only thing that will ever help is the fall of the house of US, leaving you guys exposed. Provided it comes before the genocide of Palestine is consummated. We’ve had 100+ years to learn exactly what the Zionist response to any and all peaceful gestures can ever be.

      • Talkback on December 15, 2019, 5:19 am

        JustJessetr: “Armchair purists who lives in the US on stolen land proposing others do something he will never do himself. ”

        Civilization has developed. We are living in post-colonial-times. It’s post 1945. Well except for you and your likes who inherently argue that nobody should condem the genocide against Jews, because genocides have happened before.

        And btw. the US doesn’t care about the faith/heritage of its citizens ; every citizen belongs to its nation. The right to equality is constitutionally enshrined. This is completely different to the only Apartheid state in the world.

  19. Ian Berman on December 13, 2019, 11:36 am

    Analogous to the author’s thought, when was the last time you heard an advocate for Palestinians say, “Israel has no right to exist”?

    I don’t think I have ever heard that.

    The Question is Not about Israel’s Right to Exist

    Israel does exist and it will almost certainly not go away. To engage in fantasies of military defeat of Israel prolongs the oppression of Palestinians.

    The Proper Question is What will Israel Do with Its Existence

    Will it atone for its Ethnic Cleansing that began in 1947 and continues incrementally through this day? Will it stop the oppression of non-Jews? Will it cease to be an apartheid State and have equal rights for all where the Israeli government reigns?

    https://www.facebook.com/651474495053874/photos/a.654749764726347.1073741828.651474495053874/755747251293264/

  20. tommy on December 14, 2019, 2:46 pm

    The UN’s partition plan and recognition of the State of Israel answer the question, even if one disagrees these decision from that flawed institution. However, the UN’s legitimization of Israel as a state includes well delineated borders, which should be adhered to and used to eliminate all Israeli nationalist squatters from all territories outside them. The UN and the rest of the world should enforce the Israeli border the UN established in 1947.

    • Mooser on December 14, 2019, 8:40 pm

      “The UN and the rest of the world should enforce the Israeli border the UN established in 1947.”

      That won’t be necessary if the United States would stop footing the bill for Israeli intransigence.

    • Nathan on December 15, 2019, 5:21 am

      tommy – If you believe that the UN and the rest of the world should enforce the Partition Plan borders, you should add that you believe that the Partition Plan in general should be enforced. The plan called for the founding of a Jewish state in Palestine (and an Arab state), so it would be proper that the enforcement you have in mind should include the acceptance of the Partition Plan by all parties. The Palestinians reject the legitimacy of the Partition Plan, insisting that (1) the UN had no right to divide the country and that (2) the Jews are not entitled to statehood. So, surely you can’t seriously propose that Israel live in the partition borders while her neighbors insist that partition is illegitimate and a causus belli. Surely, you are insisting that the enforcement of partition means that the conflict has been resolved.

Leave a Reply