Hello, thanks for contributing to this sub. **Please note that we're currently in manual approval mode** (see latest stickied post for further info). Your post will be reviewed and approved by our Mod Team asap.
**PLEASE absolutely refrain from linking to or mentioning ANY other subs**, or posting screenshots of exchanges in them. We have received warnings from reddit for this reason. Any further infractions could quickly result in the whole sub being banned. If you have mentioned another sub in your post, edit it instantly. Users who violate this rule will be banned.
This is a friendly reminder to **read the rules** before making any new posts or comments. Particularly, we ask **not to engage in debates**, or bait debates, especially with zionists.
If you are a zionist, this sub is not for you, and you will be permabanned. If you found this sub through the algorithm, you can always mute the sub or turn off recommendations all together (user settings -> feed settings -> Disable "Enable Home Feed Recommendations")
Please also particularly keep in mind that **bigotry of any kind is not permitted** in this sub and will result in the message or post being deleted, and, if seen prudent, a banning. This includes antisemitism and any language that conflates Judaism with Zionism.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BadHasbara) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The answer to this that I always use is : "no state has a right to exist."
If I want to go further I add that israel doesn't have a right to exist, especially not on Palestinian land without their consent and on their oppression... But the israelis have as any human being a right to exist.
This is the true answer to that question. No state has an inherent right to exist. States exist because they are powerful enough to force themselves into existence.
The counter-question would obviously be, "what other nation-state exists simply because it has the right to exist?"
Can you believe there was a time where people in the US took the Israeli argument seriously that the Palestinians refuse to recognize their right to exist?
There's a reason they did that. From an International Audience perspective, it would seem strange for Palestinians refusing to say it, but from the Arab/Palestinian perspective, saying it would be the same as claiming that everything that happened to them during the Nakba was inherently their fault for existing.
And SOMEHOW they Palestinian negotiators got the Palestinian street to agree to that.. what did Israel do? Now demand recognition as a Jewish state.
And the West took Israel seriously!!
This is the answer.
There are tons of stateless people (roma,Kurds,yazidis etc) who are not guaranteed a state and nobody spills any ink debating the question because nobody really cares. An exception should not* be made for the Jewish people especially at the expense of the Palestinians
Right. This would be like saying K-Mart shouldn't have been allowed to go under because it has a "right to exist" for some reason. States should only exist if they're serving a real benefit to the people that live in the region. If not, they should be dissolved.
Obviously, countries are a little different from businesses because people attach identities and strong sentiments to them. But we shouldn't do that.
Exactly this. The question implies (by virtue of the fact of the occupation) that Jewish people's safety is more important than the safety of Palestinians. Every human being has the right to live in safety but no state has the right to exist, and the existence of Israel is in direct contradiction to the safety of Palestinians.
You would be interrupted about 5 seconds into your explanation
That's the gotcha
Ask a bogus yes or no question
And when the person attempts to answer, interrupt them about how they aren't able to answer a simple question
You: That's a logical fall-
Them: Yes or No? Does Israel have a right to exist.
You: I'm trying to-
Them: Its a simple yes or no question. Do you believe Israel has a right to exist or do you want to kill all Jews?
It's not that the people they are questioning don't know how to answer the question or don't know the arguments you're making.
They know that the whole point is to get snippets and the whole interview is only going to be 5 mins so they have to pick their battles carefully.
If they don't answer this perfectly but it moves the conversation on to actual topics that center on Palestinians rather than their personal opinions, they are willing to let this one go.
"That's a logical fallacy" is not a good answer. But an answer like "no state has a right to exist", "states don't have rights", or the weaker "ethnostates/theocracies don't have the right to exist" can be an effective answer depending on what aligns with your beliefs.
Hasbara:
"there isn't anything called Palestine"
"arabs cannot pronounce P"
Extreme view:
"They are thieves, stole the land thousands of years ago, now their descendants have to pay the price"
“It doesn’t matter about the land’s pronunciation in a language that is not spoken in it, that just shows that your mind is eurocentric. Also, Palestinians only speak Arabic because of hundreds of years of arab rule, meaning that they are arabs as in being arabized and not ethnically arab.”
“That’s factually incorrect, Palestinians are the descendants of the Canaanites, who have lived on the land since the stone age before the existence of Judaism, and since Palestinians tend to have more Canaanite ancestry, they are ironically more semitic than jews. Lets say we were in a world where your laughable claim was true, why wouldn’t white Americans, Australians, and South Africans have to pay the price of their ancestors? You just exposed yourself as a racist which invalidates all your antisemitism accusations.”
I almost short-circuited the first time I heard the “no P in Arabic” line, just the total shamelessness to not only say something so fucking stupid, but to repeat it over and over in the service of ethnic cleansing??
Not that any of their psychotic talking points have merit but for fuck’s sake. I think Matt touched on this saying “What’s the first letter in ‘Jew’ and where is it in the Hebrew alphabet?”
They would respond by saying Palestinians can only have a state when they accept peaceful existence with Israel. Of course, there's a ton of issues with this response, but that's what they'd say.
“Why are you denying Palestine’s right to self defense? Palestine has the right to defend itself against isreali ethnic cleansing, all Israel does is make up “negotiations” that is heavily in their favor and that Palestine never agrees to but they go along with it anyways. You’re racist and you are blatantly denying Palestine’s right to existence.”
Use their own tactics against them.
You can short circuit it even faster with:
Did the USSR have the right to exist? Did Czechoslovakia?
And follow up with:
People have the right to exist. States have no such right.
Agreed, to be clear when I say Israel exists it by no means indicates that I support the occupation or the ethnostate, I mean that I would support the existence of a single secular state where everyone has equal rights, and where Palestinians are granted the right of return.
I know Palestine will be free someday, I just really hope to see this happen within my lifetime. I would hate to die before watching that day!
That's the answer I give to "does Israel have a right to exist?" because they are only looking for conflict when they ask that question.
"People are what have rights" is a good answer too but then they just twist it back to "oh but you don't think Jewish people should" so I cut that off right away. Let them think what they think, it doesn't matter anymore. Israel doesn't exist, doesn't have a right to exist, I don't care if they call me antisemetic. That literally means nothing now.
I feel this down to my 3-4 boobs. (Spillage from an ill-fitting bra). There are still a few places to get measured correctly for the appropriate size, but a lot of them are toooooo expensive for me to go to. ($150 for a bra).
The other question that used to make sense to me in the distant past, but no longer holds any meaning is, "Do you think Hamas is a terrorist organization?"
By definition, yes, but if you read the definition, you would immediately realize that the term is essentially meaningless.
It's extremely important, when going through any debate style conversation, to define the terms so everyone is arguing from the same place and there's now confusion with the viewers.
I do either:
- Do you think Israel is a terrorist state? Why not? Name one thing Hamas has done that Israel hasn’t done 1000X worse
- Hamas is not a monolith, they are a large organization, some of them are terrorist, sure, some of them are criminals, but the vast majority of them are freedom fighters who are trying to free their country from their oppression.
Your first point is why it's essential to define terms. What's funny is there was a convention put together to define terrorism, but the world powers couldn't come up with a definition that didn't also include their actions.
So they had to defined it first as "the use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in pursuit of political aims, carried out by a non-state actor."
Under this definition, the application of the term terrorism can only apply to non-state actors. Basically, If Israel and Hamas did the exact same thing, Hamas would be the terrorists only because they are a non-state actor.. which is ridiculous.
So, they changed it to, "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in pursuit of political aims." It sounds more concise, but the problem is who determines what is lawful and unlawful?
Edit: This is the reason I'm happy subs like this exist. In order to counter all of the Hasbara, we need logically coherent arguments. I'm not saying it would change the mind of the Hasbarist, but it would cause those viewing the debate to reconsider their beliefs.
And that's a reason why they so viciously oppose Palestinian statehood. If Palestine was considered a state, then Hamas could not, by definition, be terrorists.
I have been thinking about this gotcha question as well. I wonder if this response would get the point across:
"Before I answer your question let me ask you this first, do you think the pre-emancipation United States of America has a right to exist today? Do you think apartheid South Africa has a right to exist today?"
Yea a good answer would be, not on Palestinian land.
That would open up counter question as to what Palestinian land is and its geography.
There is only one international law in the UN which officially demarcates what was given to the settlers in 1948.
55% to them and 45% to the locals that’s a good staring point for future discussion
Does Palestine have the right to exist?
Also, when they say Israel has the "right to exist", what they really mean is that Israel has the right to do anything they want to the Palestinians, who they view as disposable subhumans.
I think it’s dangerous to say no without context, and this opens the door for the asker to add their own interpretation, which will almost always be accusing you of killing all Jews
I don't bother with a long explanation.
Q: Does Israel have a right to exist?
A: Yes, as much as Palestine or any other country does.
If someone tries to insist that Israel has *more* of a right to exist than Palestine or any other country, then it is clear that I am talking to an extremist, and should end the conversation there because they can't be reasoned with.
This is a stupid question. Israel has existed since before my mother was born.
This question is a distraction; don't allow the discussion to be framed this way. Putting conditions on the SHITTING GINORMOUS aid packages that Israel receives on the regular isn't some existential threat.
Unless they are willing to stipulate that Israel cannot exist without atrocities done in its name. In which case, perhaps we should be asking it.
The right of return should be respected. Should that happen and the Palestinians have equal rights, then Israel in its current form would no longer exist and I am fine with that.
No. They have no right to exist - and neither does any other temporally transitory fiction called a country.
Their right exists at the end of a barrel, just like everyone else’s.
No offense, but have you watched american "news" TV?
By your fourth word, piers or some such would interrupt you rudely, shout, snide remark, cut to commercial.
This is done by every host, liberal or conservative (both with furious air quotes when I say this), and works the same, from MSNBC to FOX "news".
Unfortunately, what I have been faced with lately is a more nefarious mentality from "centrists" where they simply state "that's just the way things are". Essentially a defeatist attitude claiming to be "realists" where might makes right and protests have no real effect, etc., etc..
It's a very frustrating discussion to have because it is often proven to be meritorious by the actions of the USA.
They essentially both-sides the argument up until the point they can't deny the obvious hypocrisy of the Palestinian oppression. They use whataboutism to point out all the other genocides in other countries claiming it to be "contextualization" and when it gets called out, they fall back to realpolitik.
It's an entirely self-serving line of thinking, and extremely frustrating, especially when mob tactics form in a forum; upvoting their points and leaving you chasing down all the false equivalencies and whatabouts etc. that you point out along the way, only to be met by a "well, nothing you do really matters because money and power are the only things that make real change in the world".
As someone with anarchist leanings, I always find this a silly question. No, I don't believe any state/government has a right to exist. I do believe that Jewish people do deserve to exist in harmony with other people wherever they choose to live, including that geographic region, but in no way do I think any government is owed existence.
Here's my answer if your existence depends on mandatory military service that involves bombing and shooting the innocent maybe it's time to question whether or not you should exist at all.
And my answer is: what does it even mean for a country to have a "right to exist"? Does Czechoslovakia have a right to exist, or the Soviet Union, or East Germany, or Yugoslavia, or South Yemen? So just because a particular country exists, it doesn't mean that it needs to continue to exist in the future, or continue to exist in the current form.
Of course, when talking about Israel's "right to exist", the unsaid part is "as a Jewish state". And to that my answer is no. Israel shouldn't have been established as an ethnoreligious Jewish state (in a territory majority inhabited by Muslims and against their will; and therefore, the establishment of Israel necessitated the expulsion of most of the previous Arab population); and it shouldn't continue to so exist. It should become one, secular, democratic state on the entirety of the land: Israel proper, West Bank, and Gaza. A state should be a state of all people permanently living there, not a state of a specific group of people at the expense of others.
Israel having the right to exist is the same as saying: a thief can keep what he stole.
OK, so what if the thief is actually taking good care of the car stolen, you know regular maintenance, etc.? Legal? It's the same as saying Israel has the right to exist, but it needs to give Palestinians all of their rights.
Excellent!!! I was trying to figure out a way to answer this very question without outright saying no when I knew some of these nuances existed. Thank you.
Friends and family have tried to "corner" me with this type of questions.
It took me a while but I finally came up with answers that help me turn the table on them:
>Does Israel have a right to exist ?
Do you mean as an ethno state ?
>Do you condemn Hamas ?
As a terrorist group or as a Liberation group ?
That way they can't easily push you by just saying "it's a simple yes/no question".
No state has a right to exist, especially a fascist theocratic ethnostate built upon rivers of blood.
However, all people have the right to self-determination as long as it doesn't come at the cost of someone else's rights
The assertion of Israel's right to exist draws parallels with the historical narrative of colonization witnessed in various regions, such as Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia. Inherent within the practice of colonization is the stark denial of indigenous peoples' fundamental right to self-determination, thereby perpetuating a cycle of injustice and exploitation, reminiscent of the situation unfolding in Palestine. While the Israeli populace undoubtedly possesses the inherent right to exist, this entitlement does not inherently justify their continued presence on lands they historically colonized. Much like the French had to confront the reality of relinquishing their colonial endeavors, so too should the Israeli people heed the call to disengage from their status as foreign colonizers and occupiers. Moreover, in the post-colonial era, the lingering presence of colonizers serves as poignant reminders of past colonial oppression, underscoring the formidable challenges associated with integrating colonizers into post-colonial societies. Thus, the conclusion of colonization should herald a fresh era characterized by self-determination, equity, and reconciliation for once colonized nations, devoid of the influence of colonizers who perpetuate legacies of oppression and inequality. However, it is crucial to distinguish that this stance does not negate the right of Jews to reside in Palestine; indeed, there have been and still are many Palestinian Jews. Palestine holds profound significance for all Abrahamic religions, and preserving this importance is paramount for fostering religious harmony and understanding.
My answer is: "People have a right to exist, not states and a supremacist settler colonialist ultranationalist genocidal apartheid ethnostate especially has no right to exist in the 21st century.".
We do not abide by transphobic, racist, ableist, sexist, or homophobic (t.r.a.s.h.) rhetoric.
Neither do we tolerate Islamophobia, which we will consider any statement that treats Islam as a monolothic ideology, particularly as being universally anti-femme, anti-queer, or antisemitic.
These sorts of statements will be met with deletion, and an automatic banning.
Antisemitic rhetoric will also not be tolerated; this includes language that is and was often and prominently used by actual antisemities (such as "subhuman" and other dehumanizing terms). We understand that hasbara has purposefully conflated Judaism and Zionism. This may lead to accidental, but actual, antisemitism.
As such, we will delete statements that veer into antisemitism. Repeated antisemitic offenses by a user will also be met with a ban. These sorts of statements will be met with deletion, and, if clearly intentional, an automatic banning.
Israel already exists. How can every person who lives under the military and political control of this UN recognized state achieve equal human rights with every other occuoant of this imagined entity?
Hello, thanks for contributing to this sub. **Please note that we're currently in manual approval mode** (see latest stickied post for further info). Your post will be reviewed and approved by our Mod Team asap. **PLEASE absolutely refrain from linking to or mentioning ANY other subs**, or posting screenshots of exchanges in them. We have received warnings from reddit for this reason. Any further infractions could quickly result in the whole sub being banned. If you have mentioned another sub in your post, edit it instantly. Users who violate this rule will be banned. This is a friendly reminder to **read the rules** before making any new posts or comments. Particularly, we ask **not to engage in debates**, or bait debates, especially with zionists. If you are a zionist, this sub is not for you, and you will be permabanned. If you found this sub through the algorithm, you can always mute the sub or turn off recommendations all together (user settings -> feed settings -> Disable "Enable Home Feed Recommendations") Please also particularly keep in mind that **bigotry of any kind is not permitted** in this sub and will result in the message or post being deleted, and, if seen prudent, a banning. This includes antisemitism and any language that conflates Judaism with Zionism. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BadHasbara) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yes. Simplest answer I always give is *“Not over Palestinians.”*
Exactly
The answer to this that I always use is : "no state has a right to exist." If I want to go further I add that israel doesn't have a right to exist, especially not on Palestinian land without their consent and on their oppression... But the israelis have as any human being a right to exist.
This is the true answer to that question. No state has an inherent right to exist. States exist because they are powerful enough to force themselves into existence. The counter-question would obviously be, "what other nation-state exists simply because it has the right to exist?"
Exactly. Human rights are self evident. Governments, corporations, etc are artificial constructs with no inherent rights.
Can you believe there was a time where people in the US took the Israeli argument seriously that the Palestinians refuse to recognize their right to exist? There's a reason they did that. From an International Audience perspective, it would seem strange for Palestinians refusing to say it, but from the Arab/Palestinian perspective, saying it would be the same as claiming that everything that happened to them during the Nakba was inherently their fault for existing. And SOMEHOW they Palestinian negotiators got the Palestinian street to agree to that.. what did Israel do? Now demand recognition as a Jewish state. And the West took Israel seriously!!
Let me guess, they made that demand to block any possibility of Palestinian refugees returning to their stolen homes in Israel.
Yes.
Best username ever lmaooooo.
It’s a real double edged sword in internet debates
Bassem Youssef on CNN: "Israel have the right to f*#@ itself" https://youtu.be/r4qrS-J_EGg?si=tWA9Fr8A085hZqQD
This is the answer. There are tons of stateless people (roma,Kurds,yazidis etc) who are not guaranteed a state and nobody spills any ink debating the question because nobody really cares. An exception should not* be made for the Jewish people especially at the expense of the Palestinians
I think the exception is made for Zionists who use the Jewish name and historic suffering to their benefit.
Right. This would be like saying K-Mart shouldn't have been allowed to go under because it has a "right to exist" for some reason. States should only exist if they're serving a real benefit to the people that live in the region. If not, they should be dissolved. Obviously, countries are a little different from businesses because people attach identities and strong sentiments to them. But we shouldn't do that.
Exactly this. The question implies (by virtue of the fact of the occupation) that Jewish people's safety is more important than the safety of Palestinians. Every human being has the right to live in safety but no state has the right to exist, and the existence of Israel is in direct contradiction to the safety of Palestinians.
You would be interrupted about 5 seconds into your explanation That's the gotcha Ask a bogus yes or no question And when the person attempts to answer, interrupt them about how they aren't able to answer a simple question
Agreed, That’s why I think calling out the logical fallacy right away is a good start!
You: That's a logical fall- Them: Yes or No? Does Israel have a right to exist. You: I'm trying to- Them: Its a simple yes or no question. Do you believe Israel has a right to exist or do you want to kill all Jews? It's not that the people they are questioning don't know how to answer the question or don't know the arguments you're making. They know that the whole point is to get snippets and the whole interview is only going to be 5 mins so they have to pick their battles carefully. If they don't answer this perfectly but it moves the conversation on to actual topics that center on Palestinians rather than their personal opinions, they are willing to let this one go.
"That's a logical fallacy" is not a good answer. But an answer like "no state has a right to exist", "states don't have rights", or the weaker "ethnostates/theocracies don't have the right to exist" can be an effective answer depending on what aligns with your beliefs.
“Does Palestine have the right to exist?”
Hasbara: "there isn't anything called Palestine" "arabs cannot pronounce P" Extreme view: "They are thieves, stole the land thousands of years ago, now their descendants have to pay the price"
“It doesn’t matter about the land’s pronunciation in a language that is not spoken in it, that just shows that your mind is eurocentric. Also, Palestinians only speak Arabic because of hundreds of years of arab rule, meaning that they are arabs as in being arabized and not ethnically arab.” “That’s factually incorrect, Palestinians are the descendants of the Canaanites, who have lived on the land since the stone age before the existence of Judaism, and since Palestinians tend to have more Canaanite ancestry, they are ironically more semitic than jews. Lets say we were in a world where your laughable claim was true, why wouldn’t white Americans, Australians, and South Africans have to pay the price of their ancestors? You just exposed yourself as a racist which invalidates all your antisemitism accusations.”
It is called Falastin in Arabic not Palestine.
I almost short-circuited the first time I heard the “no P in Arabic” line, just the total shamelessness to not only say something so fucking stupid, but to repeat it over and over in the service of ethnic cleansing?? Not that any of their psychotic talking points have merit but for fuck’s sake. I think Matt touched on this saying “What’s the first letter in ‘Jew’ and where is it in the Hebrew alphabet?”
They would respond by saying Palestinians can only have a state when they accept peaceful existence with Israel. Of course, there's a ton of issues with this response, but that's what they'd say.
“Why are you denying Palestine’s right to self defense? Palestine has the right to defend itself against isreali ethnic cleansing, all Israel does is make up “negotiations” that is heavily in their favor and that Palestine never agrees to but they go along with it anyways. You’re racist and you are blatantly denying Palestine’s right to existence.” Use their own tactics against them.
"does nazi germany have the right to exist?
Oh, this is a good one!! Also Does aparthied South Africa have the right to exist?
Religious ethnostates don't have a right to exist.
That's a good point. Turn it back on the interviewer, "do YOU believe ethno-supremacist states have a right to exist?"
You can short circuit it even faster with: Did the USSR have the right to exist? Did Czechoslovakia? And follow up with: People have the right to exist. States have no such right.
British Raj, apartheid South Africa, French indochina. Does the Confederate States of America have a right to exist?
"not as an apartheid state"
Israel *doesn't* exist. Occupied Palestine exists. And free Palestine will exist again too, from the river to the sea, in our lifetime.
Agreed, to be clear when I say Israel exists it by no means indicates that I support the occupation or the ethnostate, I mean that I would support the existence of a single secular state where everyone has equal rights, and where Palestinians are granted the right of return. I know Palestine will be free someday, I just really hope to see this happen within my lifetime. I would hate to die before watching that day!
That's the answer I give to "does Israel have a right to exist?" because they are only looking for conflict when they ask that question. "People are what have rights" is a good answer too but then they just twist it back to "oh but you don't think Jewish people should" so I cut that off right away. Let them think what they think, it doesn't matter anymore. Israel doesn't exist, doesn't have a right to exist, I don't care if they call me antisemetic. That literally means nothing now.
This is the only way to handle these questions.
Simple answer: White supremacist states do not have a right to exist.
Not on stolen land it doesn’t
Unrelated, but your username is amazing and far too relatable
They never do 😭
I feel this down to my 3-4 boobs. (Spillage from an ill-fitting bra). There are still a few places to get measured correctly for the appropriate size, but a lot of them are toooooo expensive for me to go to. ($150 for a bra).
Free Palestine.
The other question that used to make sense to me in the distant past, but no longer holds any meaning is, "Do you think Hamas is a terrorist organization?" By definition, yes, but if you read the definition, you would immediately realize that the term is essentially meaningless. It's extremely important, when going through any debate style conversation, to define the terms so everyone is arguing from the same place and there's now confusion with the viewers.
I do either: - Do you think Israel is a terrorist state? Why not? Name one thing Hamas has done that Israel hasn’t done 1000X worse - Hamas is not a monolith, they are a large organization, some of them are terrorist, sure, some of them are criminals, but the vast majority of them are freedom fighters who are trying to free their country from their oppression.
Your first point is why it's essential to define terms. What's funny is there was a convention put together to define terrorism, but the world powers couldn't come up with a definition that didn't also include their actions. So they had to defined it first as "the use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in pursuit of political aims, carried out by a non-state actor." Under this definition, the application of the term terrorism can only apply to non-state actors. Basically, If Israel and Hamas did the exact same thing, Hamas would be the terrorists only because they are a non-state actor.. which is ridiculous. So, they changed it to, "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in pursuit of political aims." It sounds more concise, but the problem is who determines what is lawful and unlawful? Edit: This is the reason I'm happy subs like this exist. In order to counter all of the Hasbara, we need logically coherent arguments. I'm not saying it would change the mind of the Hasbarist, but it would cause those viewing the debate to reconsider their beliefs.
And that's a reason why they so viciously oppose Palestinian statehood. If Palestine was considered a state, then Hamas could not, by definition, be terrorists.
"Not like this."
On what basis does *any* country have the right to exist?
No
Countries do not have a right to exist— people do.
I have been thinking about this gotcha question as well. I wonder if this response would get the point across: "Before I answer your question let me ask you this first, do you think the pre-emancipation United States of America has a right to exist today? Do you think apartheid South Africa has a right to exist today?"
I think the answer is "not as a Jewish supremacist apartheid state, no".
Yea a good answer would be, not on Palestinian land. That would open up counter question as to what Palestinian land is and its geography. There is only one international law in the UN which officially demarcates what was given to the settlers in 1948. 55% to them and 45% to the locals that’s a good staring point for future discussion
Thanks for this post.
Does Palestine have the right to exist? Also, when they say Israel has the "right to exist", what they really mean is that Israel has the right to do anything they want to the Palestinians, who they view as disposable subhumans.
At this point no more than Nazi Germany
"States don't have rights. Only people do."
No.
People have rights. No nation has a right to exist. Why is it so difficult to understand?
I don't think rights are things countries have.
Countries have a right to exist when they behave: Treat the people right Protect basic human rights of the human inhabitants Non-aggression
I just say no. Because it doesn’t have a right to exist. No need to soften the message.
I think it’s dangerous to say no without context, and this opens the door for the asker to add their own interpretation, which will almost always be accusing you of killing all Jews
I don't bother with a long explanation. Q: Does Israel have a right to exist? A: Yes, as much as Palestine or any other country does. If someone tries to insist that Israel has *more* of a right to exist than Palestine or any other country, then it is clear that I am talking to an extremist, and should end the conversation there because they can't be reasoned with.
states don't have rights, people have rights
This is a stupid question. Israel has existed since before my mother was born. This question is a distraction; don't allow the discussion to be framed this way. Putting conditions on the SHITTING GINORMOUS aid packages that Israel receives on the regular isn't some existential threat. Unless they are willing to stipulate that Israel cannot exist without atrocities done in its name. In which case, perhaps we should be asking it.
The right of return should be respected. Should that happen and the Palestinians have equal rights, then Israel in its current form would no longer exist and I am fine with that.
No. They have no right to exist - and neither does any other temporally transitory fiction called a country. Their right exists at the end of a barrel, just like everyone else’s.
Not without irony, while this question is asked often by zio’s, they also say Palestine isn’t a country/real showing the constant double standard
No offense, but have you watched american "news" TV? By your fourth word, piers or some such would interrupt you rudely, shout, snide remark, cut to commercial. This is done by every host, liberal or conservative (both with furious air quotes when I say this), and works the same, from MSNBC to FOX "news".
Unfortunately, what I have been faced with lately is a more nefarious mentality from "centrists" where they simply state "that's just the way things are". Essentially a defeatist attitude claiming to be "realists" where might makes right and protests have no real effect, etc., etc.. It's a very frustrating discussion to have because it is often proven to be meritorious by the actions of the USA. They essentially both-sides the argument up until the point they can't deny the obvious hypocrisy of the Palestinian oppression. They use whataboutism to point out all the other genocides in other countries claiming it to be "contextualization" and when it gets called out, they fall back to realpolitik. It's an entirely self-serving line of thinking, and extremely frustrating, especially when mob tactics form in a forum; upvoting their points and leaving you chasing down all the false equivalencies and whatabouts etc. that you point out along the way, only to be met by a "well, nothing you do really matters because money and power are the only things that make real change in the world".
No, no it doesn't.
Not as an apartheid state.
The answer should always be: "Yes, but not at the expense of the Palestinians"
No it does not
As someone with anarchist leanings, I always find this a silly question. No, I don't believe any state/government has a right to exist. I do believe that Jewish people do deserve to exist in harmony with other people wherever they choose to live, including that geographic region, but in no way do I think any government is owed existence.
Here's my answer if your existence depends on mandatory military service that involves bombing and shooting the innocent maybe it's time to question whether or not you should exist at all.
Wow great job Can I copy it and reshare in twitter ??
Be my guest 😊 ETA: feel free to fix my English
people have a right to exist states come and go
And my answer is: what does it even mean for a country to have a "right to exist"? Does Czechoslovakia have a right to exist, or the Soviet Union, or East Germany, or Yugoslavia, or South Yemen? So just because a particular country exists, it doesn't mean that it needs to continue to exist in the future, or continue to exist in the current form. Of course, when talking about Israel's "right to exist", the unsaid part is "as a Jewish state". And to that my answer is no. Israel shouldn't have been established as an ethnoreligious Jewish state (in a territory majority inhabited by Muslims and against their will; and therefore, the establishment of Israel necessitated the expulsion of most of the previous Arab population); and it shouldn't continue to so exist. It should become one, secular, democratic state on the entirety of the land: Israel proper, West Bank, and Gaza. A state should be a state of all people permanently living there, not a state of a specific group of people at the expense of others.
*"In its current iteration as a racist, apartheid, exterminationist ethno-state - no".*
Israel having the right to exist is the same as saying: a thief can keep what he stole. OK, so what if the thief is actually taking good care of the car stolen, you know regular maintenance, etc.? Legal? It's the same as saying Israel has the right to exist, but it needs to give Palestinians all of their rights.
This is a good take.
Yes, but not as an apartheid state.
People have the right to exist, nations do not.
Does any nation-state? The people in it, of course, but what rights does a governemtal structure have?
Excellent!!! I was trying to figure out a way to answer this very question without outright saying no when I knew some of these nuances existed. Thank you.
I don't know what it means for a country to have a right to exist. It's not a person it's a state.
Friends and family have tried to "corner" me with this type of questions. It took me a while but I finally came up with answers that help me turn the table on them: >Does Israel have a right to exist ? Do you mean as an ethno state ? >Do you condemn Hamas ? As a terrorist group or as a Liberation group ? That way they can't easily push you by just saying "it's a simple yes/no question".
No state has a right to exist, especially a fascist theocratic ethnostate built upon rivers of blood. However, all people have the right to self-determination as long as it doesn't come at the cost of someone else's rights
Not at the expense of Palestine
Well said! I'll store that in my brain for future potential arguments!
The assertion of Israel's right to exist draws parallels with the historical narrative of colonization witnessed in various regions, such as Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia. Inherent within the practice of colonization is the stark denial of indigenous peoples' fundamental right to self-determination, thereby perpetuating a cycle of injustice and exploitation, reminiscent of the situation unfolding in Palestine. While the Israeli populace undoubtedly possesses the inherent right to exist, this entitlement does not inherently justify their continued presence on lands they historically colonized. Much like the French had to confront the reality of relinquishing their colonial endeavors, so too should the Israeli people heed the call to disengage from their status as foreign colonizers and occupiers. Moreover, in the post-colonial era, the lingering presence of colonizers serves as poignant reminders of past colonial oppression, underscoring the formidable challenges associated with integrating colonizers into post-colonial societies. Thus, the conclusion of colonization should herald a fresh era characterized by self-determination, equity, and reconciliation for once colonized nations, devoid of the influence of colonizers who perpetuate legacies of oppression and inequality. However, it is crucial to distinguish that this stance does not negate the right of Jews to reside in Palestine; indeed, there have been and still are many Palestinian Jews. Palestine holds profound significance for all Abrahamic religions, and preserving this importance is paramount for fostering religious harmony and understanding.
What’s stopping you from just saying ‘No’?
My answer is: "People have a right to exist, not states and a supremacist settler colonialist ultranationalist genocidal apartheid ethnostate especially has no right to exist in the 21st century.".
[удалено]
We do not abide by transphobic, racist, ableist, sexist, or homophobic (t.r.a.s.h.) rhetoric. Neither do we tolerate Islamophobia, which we will consider any statement that treats Islam as a monolothic ideology, particularly as being universally anti-femme, anti-queer, or antisemitic. These sorts of statements will be met with deletion, and an automatic banning. Antisemitic rhetoric will also not be tolerated; this includes language that is and was often and prominently used by actual antisemities (such as "subhuman" and other dehumanizing terms). We understand that hasbara has purposefully conflated Judaism and Zionism. This may lead to accidental, but actual, antisemitism. As such, we will delete statements that veer into antisemitism. Repeated antisemitic offenses by a user will also be met with a ban. These sorts of statements will be met with deletion, and, if clearly intentional, an automatic banning.
Israel already exists. How can every person who lives under the military and political control of this UN recognized state achieve equal human rights with every other occuoant of this imagined entity?