3 ms·

Israel state as it is doesn't have a right to exist. No state does. Neither does Germany. State is just some temporary (in the grand scheme of things) form of

by megous 2y ago

Israel state as it is doesn't have a right to exist. No state does. Neither does Germany. State is just some temporary (in the grand scheme of things) form of often violent organization some group of people form at a time to organize their affairs (and force some others into or out of, usually) for their own benefit. (For Israel, this includes defacto permanent military subjugation of millions of people, and stripping them of their rights. This makes it doubly ridiculous that this is almost the only state where you constantly hear from the supporters that it has the "right to exists" somehow.) States either do exist (if enough people are willing to fund and maintain such an organization, and/or let themselves get killed and/or kill others for it) or they don't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_exist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_exist It's just a philosophical issue. That Germany decided preserving existence of particular current form of Israeli state is useful target for thought policing is basically just ridiculous. Calls for "destruction" of Israel as a state as it currently is (eg. change of regime from racist religious ethnostate to true democracy) are not necessarily "bad". The state I was born in doesn't exist anymore, BTW. It was replaced with a different state because people called for ending it in '89. And then again at the end of '92. Not many people are crying over it. States come and go all the time.

mariusor 2y ago
With the risk of splitting the hairs even more, I think that what is commonly meant by "the right of the Israel state to exist" is that the Jewish people have a right to govern themselves as a sovereign nation in the land of Israel.
- aguaviva 2y ago
  That the Jewish people have a right to govern themselves as a sovereign nation in the land of Israel. And it's perfectly possible to question this claim (it is not ipso facto a "right") without being even in the least antisemitic, or wishing physical harm on anyone. Being as you're leaving out the fact that this "sovereign nation" was carved out of another people's land, fundamentally denying their right to self-determination. It is this usurpation and denial of the rights of the indigenous inhabitants that people question, when they express doubts about the supposedly inalienable "right" of the State of Israel to exist. (And yes - this generalizes to all countries; it's perfectly reasonable to question the "right" of any country to exist, or to exist with its currently claimed borders).
  - mariusor 2y ago
    The reason why I left out anything was to avoid my clarification being taken as evidence of some personal bias. Alas I failed. As you seem to agree that most modern nations have been borne out of injustices of some form or other, I feel obliged to ask this: isn't it taxing to deny every country's right to exist? It feels like it would be if you want to live in a moderate society where people want bygones to be bygones, especially the kinds that nobody can do anything meaningful about. Personally I feel like the more productive way of arguing is for diminishing the injustices that are happening right now, not against the reasons why those injustices happen in the first place.
    - aguaviva 2y ago
      Isn't it taxing to deny every country's right to exist? I don't see this stance so much as denying the rights of these countries to exist. But rather, as recognizing that all of them are, for the most part -- faits accomplis. And in particular -- that we are free to disregard obligations imposed by others to pretend (with them) that they have (and at this point I am no longer using your words, but generalizing) some inalienable, "God-given" right to occupy a given piece of territory, within whatever borders they choose to proclaim -- and at the expense of the rights of those already living there. So on balance, I see this is a decidedly less taxing stance to take. At the same time -- I'm very much in the "bygones be bygones" camp, as applies to the vast majority of cases. Which doesn't mean, however, that aren't certain major territorial disputes around the world that aren't yet quite ready for the "bygones" designation -- and in fact still need to be properly adjudicated (or barring that, at least protected from deteriorating / being encroached upon even further). The situation in the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights being one of them.
oezi 2y ago
It is not ridiculous for Germany to feel a moral obligation towards those who were affected by Germany's crimes against humanity. We apply the name "Israel" to those and think that it is sufficiently clear. In fact, I think those moral obligations rank higher than a lot of individual freedoms. Remember that the German constitution puts the dignity of (wo)man above all other rights. Freedom of Opinion is Article 5 and can be restricted by law and to protect youth and personal honor. I don't know where you come from but calls for destruction of any country are bad. We might strive for leaders or parties to be exchanged, we might strive for independence of oppressed minorities, but that doesn't mean we want to destroy the country.
- mariusor 2y ago
  I hate to keep going into this but the legitimacy of the existence of Israel is not just a matter of "it has a right to exist" or "it should be destroyed". I think there's a lot of intermediary things to be said and reasoned about. For example, in its current form the way that the state of Israel is behaving is very similar to what got other countries and their leaders as defendants in the court of human rights.
  - oezi 2y ago
    And Netanjahu will have to face the courts for this. His response to the atrocities of Hamas wasn't proportionate and it wasn't taking civilian lives sufficiently into account (IMHO). Yet, this has nothing to do with Israel's right to continue to exist. You can't weigh evil against other evil. You got to find another way.

by megous 2y ago

mariusor 2y ago

With the risk of splitting the hairs even more, I think that what is commonly meant by "the right of the Israel state to exist" is that the Jewish people have a right to govern themselves as a sovereign nation in the land of Israel.

aguaviva 2y ago
That the Jewish people have a right to govern themselves as a sovereign nation in the land of Israel. And it's perfectly possible to question this claim (it is not ipso facto a "right") without being even in the least antisemitic, or wishing physical harm on anyone. Being as you're leaving out the fact that this "sovereign nation" was carved out of another people's land, fundamentally denying their right to self-determination. It is this usurpation and denial of the rights of the indigenous inhabitants that people question, when they express doubts about the supposedly inalienable "right" of the State of Israel to exist. (And yes - this generalizes to all countries; it's perfectly reasonable to question the "right" of any country to exist, or to exist with its currently claimed borders).
- mariusor 2y ago
  The reason why I left out anything was to avoid my clarification being taken as evidence of some personal bias. Alas I failed. As you seem to agree that most modern nations have been borne out of injustices of some form or other, I feel obliged to ask this: isn't it taxing to deny every country's right to exist? It feels like it would be if you want to live in a moderate society where people want bygones to be bygones, especially the kinds that nobody can do anything meaningful about. Personally I feel like the more productive way of arguing is for diminishing the injustices that are happening right now, not against the reasons why those injustices happen in the first place.
  - aguaviva 2y ago
    Isn't it taxing to deny every country's right to exist? I don't see this stance so much as denying the rights of these countries to exist. But rather, as recognizing that all of them are, for the most part -- faits accomplis. And in particular -- that we are free to disregard obligations imposed by others to pretend (with them) that they have (and at this point I am no longer using your words, but generalizing) some inalienable, "God-given" right to occupy a given piece of territory, within whatever borders they choose to proclaim -- and at the expense of the rights of those already living there. So on balance, I see this is a decidedly less taxing stance to take. At the same time -- I'm very much in the "bygones be bygones" camp, as applies to the vast majority of cases. Which doesn't mean, however, that aren't certain major territorial disputes around the world that aren't yet quite ready for the "bygones" designation -- and in fact still need to be properly adjudicated (or barring that, at least protected from deteriorating / being encroached upon even further). The situation in the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights being one of them.

oezi 2y ago

It is not ridiculous for Germany to feel a moral obligation towards those who were affected by Germany's crimes against humanity. We apply the name "Israel" to those and think that it is sufficiently clear. In fact, I think those moral obligations rank higher than a lot of individual freedoms. Remember that the German constitution puts the dignity of (wo)man above all other rights. Freedom of Opinion is Article 5 and can be restricted by law and to protect youth and personal honor. I don't know where you come from but calls for destruction of any country are bad. We might strive for leaders or parties to be exchanged, we might strive for independence of oppressed minorities, but that doesn't mean we want to destroy the country.

mariusor 2y ago
I hate to keep going into this but the legitimacy of the existence of Israel is not just a matter of "it has a right to exist" or "it should be destroyed". I think there's a lot of intermediary things to be said and reasoned about. For example, in its current form the way that the state of Israel is behaving is very similar to what got other countries and their leaders as defendants in the court of human rights.
- oezi 2y ago
  And Netanjahu will have to face the courts for this. His response to the atrocities of Hamas wasn't proportionate and it wasn't taking civilian lives sufficiently into account (IMHO). Yet, this has nothing to do with Israel's right to continue to exist. You can't weigh evil against other evil. You got to find another way.