Do You "Acknowledge Israel's Right To Exist"?

Miscellaneous General
1

The question’s only purpose: to seperate and divide people, countries, and cultures. To cause anger and fighting and bloodshed.

This question was designed by the devil himself.

To the unsuspecting person, they are only asking “would you attack Israel”?.

But asking that simple question wouldn’t divide people, it would not incite hatred on both sides. And, it could be easily answered.

A peace loving person could believe Israel does not have a right to exist , but not want to use any violence towards Israel. The devils among us would hate this.

2

No, I am an anarchist, I don’t recognize any state’s right to exist. But Israel is a horrible state, there are few states which currently attack, imprison and torture a neighboring population like Israel does. Also property rights come into question for people living in Israel, considering they are still murdering, expanding, demolishing people’s homes.

3

“No, I am an anarchist, I don’t recognize any state’s right to exist.”

I’m sorry, I’m actually not asking the question, I’m commenting on how deceiving and evil the question is itself.

What they should ask Arabian officials is “would you ever attack Israel”.

4

Actually I find it a very straightforward question. Those who deny Israel the right to exist would force it ‘shut’ by force if 1) they could, and 2) they had nothing better to do.

So what the question is really asking is, would you destroy Israel if you could?

5

“Those who deny Israel the right to exist would force it ‘shut’ by force”

Is it not possible to be peaceful and be of one or the other opinion?

The question is used in a way to assume it is not possible. Its an evil attempt to create division and bloodshed.

6

I’ve always held the question to be irrelevant and ridiculous. If you answer in the affirmative, then my response would be, “why do we care what you think?” In the present Israel-Palestine debate, neither country’s right to exist should be questioned, for as long as those living within those countries believe in the state’s right to exist then the question is irrelevant.

7

I agree that it is rational to say that the State of Israel does not have right to exist as no state does. ONLY individuals have rights to exist. The State of Israel is just a bunch of people. The individuals of Israel clearly do not have the power to enforce the existence of their state, otherwise no-one would be asking the question about their “right” to exist. I do not hear people challenging the power of the State of Canada to exist.

Now the people of Israel have dug this hole for themselves by not respecting the private property rights of the other folks living in that area. In my opinion their lack of the respect for the property rights of others has gone so far that those on the other end not only see no alternative to violent force to destroy the State of Israel but are enraged in a fit of revenge for the violent acts those in the State of Israel have committed.

8

I assume you mean their government or their country. And not some guy named ‘Israel’.

Israel doesn’t exist. Neither the government nor the country. And neither does any other government or country.

The map is not the territory. And concepts, like states, don’t exist. Maps exist and force occurs. But no countries or states.

Anything which exists exists. There is no right to exist. If Israel changed its name to ‘Nilbog’, would Israel cease to exist?

I think the question is even more insiduous for making a new standard: that something exists simply if we think it should. And further, that this delusion should be so or even under question even beyond the cultures who make such lies. If we believe hard enough or protect the integrity of the map, then the concept will exist forever. But to paraphrase the book of Ecclesiastes: this is all vanity.

Furthermore, rights don’t exist. Which is the key word; not if they exist or not. It is to speak as if this is a future possibility that they can exist which depends on our belief again. Beyond the question of existence itself. Which of course begs of the question of what will exist to which we refer to; not the name. But is also begging the question of ‘rights’.

What if Palestinians and Israelis both wanted the name ‘Israel’? How would the question be resolved then?

9

The map is not the territory. And concepts, like states, don’t exist.

The state is not just a concept. It’s a bureaucracy which holds a monopoly on force. It is a physical entity.

What if Palestinians and Israelis both wanted the name ‘Israel’? How would the question be resolved then?

But they don’t, so I don’t see how you splitting hairs advances discussion on this thread… at all.

10

Force is an action; it doesn’t exist. A bureaucracy doesn’t exist. Only individuals do. Furthermore it is possible that what we call a state is not using force at some given moment. And that the bureaucracy can change heads, but remain the same state. It is a continuous thing – like many concepts which endure – but not a thing that exists. If it existed, it would exist and there is nothing we could do about it or change it through ideas.

And it is not splitting hairs. Since Israel can have different definitions. It’s the same proposition as having one name for two places. Which furthers the point that it is not a coherent existence. Because this existence depends on a reference. Not on the name. The name is just a frame to confuse discussion.

For instance, there are those opposed to today’s policies and their extension of land. But not opposed per se to Israelis having their own state. Most of the PLO and Fatah and other organizations have caved to demands and realize that zionism will remain in the region no matter what. But everyone is asking where the lines are drawn. Israel could easily just be one house and a Knesset, depending on where lines are drawn. Or like the Israeli government: mostly in their own minds (based on where they want to build). In some people’s opinion they must retake the Sinai desert. They would want their own arbitrary definition which satisfies them. I’m assuming they would want the same uncompromising Israeli government as now, too, which creates the rest of the ideal conditions: cultural and racial homogeneity, military dominance, etc. But there is no reason suspect that objectively this is what Israel must be in order to still exist. But people will claim that this is the case. It must be this to exist.

This is why people are so adament about calling any Israeli compromise even ‘jeopardizing Israeli existence’.

So if Palestinians took over and kept the name ‘Israel’, would people still support Israel? If some other state of affairs which made Israel not Israel (except in name) in some arbitrary definition… would they still support it? I think this is a legitimate question.

11

A bureaucracy doesn’t exist. Only individuals do.

Bureaucracy, as a group of individuals, physically exists.

Force is an action; it doesn’t exist.

Nobody said it physically did. What I said is that the state is a bureaucracy which holds a monopoly on force.

Since Israel can have different definitions. It’s the same proposition as having one name for two places.

It’s the name of one place. What’s being debated is what geographic area the state of Israel is said to control.

This is why people are so adament about calling any Israeli compromise even ‘jeopardizing Israeli existence’.

No, many Jews are adamant about not comprimising with the Palestinians because they see it as,

  1. A slipperly slope,
  2. Giving in to Arab terrorism.

So if Palestinians took over and kept the name ‘Israel’, would people still support Israel?

Again, who cares? That’s not what the present discussion is about, so it’s completely irrelevant.

12

You’re missing the point. Groups don’t exist. Only individuals. It’s irrelevant if it is a bureaucracy. This is an important point even in this context, since collective punishments of Jews and Palestinians is a common occurence. But you’ve ignored my point about the country also not existing. To my mind, there is no reason a group of men should have a special name if they are operating in a certain place. Just like their uniforms shouldn’t change their identity of characteristics. Especially not if the place they operate is not itself a coherent object to monopolize.

Is the bureaucratic aspect of the military or police what makes it a state? And as far as I know, the bureaucrats aren’t carrying the guns, they are just following orders. Your definition also seems to include any private property as a state as well, if it contains its own bureaucracy.

It is part of the discussion. Because the OP is mentioning the use of language as a method of limiting debate and also unnecessarily dividing people. Ironically, while not allowing other necessary and intellectual divisions that arise with more careful use of language. Which should exist in a more rational and respectful discussion.

But if you get into the nuances of language, you can see that there is a wider debate going on about what constitutes the limit of Israeli power. And how there is a diversity of perspective. Both of which are shut down when people limit the language which they use to supporting or non-support for Israel. Which is a false dichtomy. You are wrong when you say that there is a monolithic Israel at present or in the past, the existence of which is cut and dried limit of the debate.

Even some like Chomsky say that the current policies are not ‘pro-israel’, for instance, since they will lead to the destruction of said country. And yet people call him anti-Israel or worse: anti-semitic.

My statement about jeopardizing Israel is a wider conclusion than simply fear of Arab terrorism. Or losing all of Israel in a slippery slope. This is not a compromise with Palestinians only. But even within Israeli intellectual circles and the press. To some, any deviation from current policy is anti-Israel. Even in the United States, liberals think conservatives are destroying America. And vice versa. As if they are compromising the entire system: state and country. Because their emotional conditioning as to the definition of country is increasingly more and more subjective and contingent upon their own demands. And less and less objective.

My same point holds. That there are many things called Israel. Because much of it is mental and thus non-existent and unaccountable. The rest is hardly even worth wanting if not for the major mental conditioning that Muslims and Jews have endured. But even that is non-negotiable since the land is not up for debate: it will be there as long as the Earth is. And far longer than people calling it Israel. You can’t even ask if the land has a right to exist. Does the Pacific Ocean have the right to exist? That is why the question must be limited to what it is. But first we must know what it is the question even means. Left unsaid, the questioner can easily lead the questioned anywhere they want. As I think OP clearly stated.

13

You’re missing the point. Groups don’t exist. Only individuals.

No, I understood that “point”. You’ve just been repeating it, without substantiating why. Groups exist, they just don’t act. Individuals exist, individuals act. There is a difference between “existence” and whether or not that “thing” can act.

To my mind, there is no reason a group of men should have a special name if they are operating in a certain place.

Like I said, who cares about what you think, when the only people who are relevant are those who do believe Israel has a right to “exist”, whether that existance is physically possible or not.

Is the bureaucratic aspect of the military or police what makes it a state? And as far as I know, the bureaucrats aren’t carrying the guns, they are just following orders. Your definition also seems to include any private property as a state as well, if it contains its own bureaucracy.

The Rothbardian definition of the state is a “monopoly on force”. Are you denying that the state (bureaucracy) of Israel does not hold a monopoly on force within the geographic boundaries of the Israel?

You are wrong when you say that there is a monolithic Israel at present or in the past, the existence of which is cut and dried limit of the debate.

I don’t understand what your rant about language has anything to do with anything that I said. I only said that the question whether or not Israel exists is irrelevant, because anwering the question is any way doesn’t actually provide anything of use to furthering the debate. You can answer that it does not have a right to exist, or does not exist at all, and others will disagree with you. Most Israeli Jews are bound to disagree with you. So, what purpose does that question have? None at all. The solution to problems in the Middle East lie elsewhere (I believe they lie in Palestinian poverty, not whether Israel exists).

My same point holds. That there are many things called Israel.

Another “point” without substantiation, or even further clarification. This doesn’t mean anything to me.

14

Israel’s story is fascinating yet tragic. It was the last successful colonial experience in the world, yet the only way for it to obtain protection in the UN-dominated world of the 1950’s was to declare itself a state and part of the system. Even if the Israelis recognized that a Jewish Republic was unnatural for this part of the world, they had no choice but to adopt the model at the time.

That is not to say that Israel needs to continue to exist as it is, and if it wishes to resolve the problems it faces, it may have to make radical adaptations.

One more thing that is fascinating about Israel: in two generations, it has known every kind of war there is: a war of terrorism (against the British Mandate), a war of national liberation, a war of national defense, a war of territorial conquest, a war of occupation (Lebanon) and a war on terrorism (which it must be admitted, they have won).

They have also experimented with a foreign war on a non-state party (Hezbollah), with more or less success.

15

“Like I said, who cares about what you think”

You seem like a very unintellectual person.

I don’t have much use for debating you, especially with your disrespectful tone. Saying no one cares what I think. Please stop replying to my posts, then.

I am giving my own opinion on the matter, compared to my own philosophy. And here you are telling me how to have my opinion. And then that no one cares that I have an opinion. This is par for the course of discussion that people have opinions and want to read opinions. If you want avoid it, go away.

As far as politics go, people within those countries can question. They are two countries next to one another that want to inhabit the same areas so of course their existence comes into question.. And of course American tax payers who fund Israel considerably, willing or not, are entitled to their opinion on the matter. Just as they are towards anything in their democracy. I am an American and I won’t be told that my opinion doesn’t matter, thank you very much. It will matter quite considerably what Americans think. It could be the difference peace and continued wars.

Then there are those who might use force to interupt or eliminate the Israeli government. For whatever reason. Which probably includes most of the Muslim world, particularly border states. Using this force would have an effect on the existence of Israel. Ergo, Israel cares; ergo America also cares about these groups. There are also international laws and each country’s definition of sovereignty. Which brings in the rest of the world via the UN or these international courts. The fact of the matter is that every country is involved in everyone else’s business.

16

I disagree with just about everybody in this thread, it seems. I would rather suggest the wise advice Ron Paul gave earlier during the Conflict::

“America has tried walking a dangerous tightrope in the Middle East, funding Israel then denouncing its actions…

"I find it inappropriate to criticize Israel for wanting to secure its borders. Yet if this means more military action than seems reasonable and it is financed entirely with American tax dollars, the U.S. Congress and the people of the United States who elect the Members of Congress bear a responsibility for what is happening… [E]ven as the bombs were falling on Beirut, we tripled our economic aid to Lebanon to rebuild the towns blown up by our weapons. To confuse matters even more, as the PLO—a declared enemy of the United States—appeared to be on the ropes, we risked life, limb and diplomacy to rescue them…

"Israel has not and will not benefit from our persistent involvement in the Mideast. Since our dollars flow to both Arabs and Israelis, we will not be inclined to allow either side to decide for itself what is in its own best interest. Israel, under today’s circumstances, cannot retain its sovereignty, for we will always feel compelled to criticize their actions if, in our opinion, these actions destabilize the area… I think what they do in these areas is their business, not ours. How would we feel if a country halfway around the world told us how we should act in the face of what we believed to be a threat to our borders? … Giving military support to two sides of a conflict and then proclaiming neutrality is not a tenable policy… [W]e first gave economic and military aid to Israel; then we gave aid to Lebanon to help them rebuild from the Israeli attack on PLO in Lebanon… Security in this area is vital to Israel. Israel had nearly achieved this… We have rescued the PLO when Israel was about to do the PLO in. And what do we find now? The PLO is back in Lebanon, shooting at our Marines. And we actually financed both sides.Israel, at that time, was able to take care of the PLO, yet we marched in,rescued the PLO; now we still have them to contend with… It literally restrains Israel from doing the kind of thing that they need to do to secure their own country” (Ron Paul, Foreign Policy of Freedom, pp. 13-33).

Jews have a right live where they want peacefully, and if they are attacked they can defend themselves. Same is true of any person of any nation. It is not America’s business to push “compromise” or “give aid” to any side whatsoever, because this prevents the situation form being resolved.

Just so, poverty in Palestine is the cause of the conflict. It is fueled by resentment of capitalism and Western ideology. David Landes commented in an interview, “When Palestinians behave like the Japanese, we will know we are living in a different era.”

17

I think the point being made is that if you look at a map, you don’t see political lines drawn and there is no text over a geographic area that says, “THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.” The flag, the symbols, the borders, etc. are all just part of the mythology. The only difference between somebody in Seattle and Vancouver is which side of the divide they fall on determined by their overlords.

The lines aren’t determined by anything meaningful like property rights, it’s just a fiat fantasy. All we can infer is that there is a geographical location and a defense contractor claims to own all the citizens in that geographica area. If you want to call that a State, I’m fine with that, but when we talk about “Israel” we are talking about what it stands for, it’s people, it’s government, it’s location, and it’s flag, and all of that stuff. In actuality, we’re talking about the land commonly referred to as Israel that is claimed to be owned by people with guns. It’s just a plot of land.

18

I agree unconditionally that only individuals exist and own property, as Carl Menger argued: there are no aggregates which act in nature on other aggregates.

But when people ask, “Does Israel have a right to exist?” They question refers to, exactly for that reason, indvidual Jews owning that particular land and living with Western contract law in that location.

I couldn’t be happier, personally, as an economist, if private military firms were used be citizens for defense, as opposed to government.

But that is not the question, since that would be true for every single country today.

The question is: can Jews (and the many brave but still minority of Arabs who like industrial civilization) own property and defend their property in a region where many other property owners around them resent Westerners and do not respect their property whatsoever? This is answered in the affirmative.

19

the whole point of the post was to show how sleezy the devils in the media are when they have an arabian and an Israeli debating.

They always ask the arabian…“but you do acknowledge Israel’s right to exist”…

and of course the sheeple don’t know what’s going on…they don’t know the devil is using a tactic on them…they misinterpret it as "Would you attack Israel?

My point is…many a peaceful arabians might say, Israel has no right to exist the way it is now…or something like that…but never ever would turn to violence…but the sheeple don’t know this. They believe the arabian was basically saying…we shouild attack Israel, when they answered that devilish question.

The question the scumbag devils in the media should ask is:

Do you think x,y,z country should attack Israel…

of course, asking that question…they would get alot of No’s. And that might actually let sheeple see that not all arabians are war crazed as the devils like to portray.

20

First off, I am an anarcho-capitalist, and therefore do not acknowledge the right of any state to exist. That said, this is a valid question that even an-caps must weigh in on, as we must engage society on terms they accept in order to be productive. Our (sometimes pseudo-) intellectual bloviations are of very little practical use, as clearly evinced by the majority of posts so far in this thread.

To the extent that in the creation of the Jewish state the rights of Palestinians have been violated, the Israeli Jews, as willing participants (no population that I know of can be said to be more amenable to description as members of legitimate social contract than Israeli Jews), have given up their rights in proportion to their assault on the legitimate property rights of Palestinian Arabs. Through proportionality, one can determine that the Israeli Jews have therefore not only ceded a just right to any property made theirs via the 1947 agreements overseen by the U.N. (again, assuming for argument’s sake the legitimacy of such agreements), but to all property owned via just acquisition by Jews living in Palestine prior to the Balfour Declaration.

To take it a step further, one can show how, under any semi-libertarian legal ethic, the UK’s grant of property to Israeli Jews is null and void. Kings are the property owners of their entire kingdom, and likewise governments often own property in this way. This is property, but it is not justly owned property, as the government did not homestead it or acquire it justly from its original homesteader. This property, therefore, is rightfully owned by (the just property of) either those it was stolen from, or if they or their heirs cannot be found, the first user.

The United Kingdom owned Palestine, and ceded it (albeit under violent coercion from Jewish terrorists) to the state we now call Israel, which now gives land grants based on the religious heritage of individuals who wish to move to the territory. There was no legitimate transfer of just property, as the property was not justly owned. Original owners could not be traced, as the United Kingdom got the land from the Ottoman Empire. Therefore the property continued to be justly owned by those occupying it, the vast majority of whom were Palestinian Arabs.

Regardless of the continued unjust aggression shown both by the IDF in, well, most of their dealings, and by those perpetrating what the Israeli government persists in calling “settlements” (forced annexation), the current Jewish occupiers of Palestine have no right whatsoever to more than 3/4 of the land they occupy in the same way that the recipient of a gift of stolen goods has no right to those goods in the face of the rightful/original owner of those goods.

So, no. Israel has no right to exist, even in comparison with other modern states. This is not a libertarian judgment, and it is certainly not an an-cap judgement. It is a judgment based on any legal conception that does not include the phrase “might makes right” as a central tenet.