The whole right to exist debate is silly.

[cali]

Nations either exist or they don't. What does a right to exist even mean in the real world? What is gained by saying such and such a nation has no right to exist?

[xultar]

1. And if I say you don't exist no need to get fuckin pissy. Just ignore

my ass.

[bryant69]

15. What a well reasoned and well thought out response

Gosh, how insightful.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[eFriendly]

2. I Agree!

It IS silly, I agree. Nations and empires come and go. I guess the Israeli state just believes it has a 'god-given' right that neither the Phoenicians nor the Macedonians ever had.

It's just a strawman argument, imho.

[bloom]

3. It might be extreme

but I think that by the same reasoning as Israel uses - women could announce that Greece (or maybe the whole EU) is their country - all women get citizenship - say men have to live on reservations or leave or something, etc.

After all women have been oppressed - for millennia. We could call it bloomism. Ha.



(We could take over the US - but it's not as interesting).

[Totallybushed]

11. How is it a strawman argument?

Currently Israel exists, and will continue to try to do so.

It is not obligated, under any moral standard or international law, to let itself be put out of existence by those that hide behind their women.

Hezbollah, and Hezbollah alone, is responsible for the civilian casualties.

[eFriendly]

12. NO nation, under any circumstances, has a 'right' to exist.

Therefore, the statement by any nation about it's "right to exist" is a stawman argument. And that argument comes from Israeli leaders and supporters quite often.

Every nation has a right to protect itself from acts of aggression. However, that does not mean that a nation can respond to terrorism with it's own flavor of terrorism under the guise of a legitimate military response.

Hezbollah did not attack Israeli civilians at the start of this conflict. They attacked the Israeli Army. Israel decided to intentionally attack civilians in Lebanon to 'get even' with Hezbollah -- and THAT is terrorism!

Israel should be held to account.

[Totallybushed]

13. Then you are saying

that neither Lebanon nor a future Palestinian state has a right to exist? Right?

Besides, you totally misunderstand the nature of a "strawman' argument, but it is not my job to educate you. There are a number of sites where you can educate yourself about it. Google 'logic'.

But getting back to your argument. Israel exists, and it does not feel like not existing. It has at least as much right to defend itself as its enemies do to attack it. Or, it has as least as much right to attack its enemies as they do to defend themselves.


It does not have to refrain from retaliation when attacked. If the attackers hide among civilians, the civilians are their responsibility, not Israel's. This is all in accordance with the great god, international law.

[eFriendly]

14. Totallyabsurd

"...neither Lebanon nor a future Palestinian state has a right to exist? Right?"

Lebanon, like Israel (as you mentioned), already exists and has a right to defend itself against aggression. And if, as you seem to believe, a nation does possess some unrecorded "right to exist" (divine or otherwise), then the Israelis have denied the Palestinians of that very 'right' for the past few decades. Right?

"Besides, you totally misunderstand the nature of a "strawman' argument, but it is not my job to educate you. There are a number of sites where you can educate yourself about it. Google 'logic'."

Awww... did someone not teach you how to use a dictionary?

Strawman - "a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted."

So who's understanding of a 'strawman' did I misunderstand... yours or the dictionary's? :eyes:

"This is all in accordance with the great god, international law."

So Israel is now doing God's work? :puke:

It's a dog-eat-dog world and Israel is wearing MilkBone underwear.

[Totallybushed]

18. "Totally absurd."

I agree completely. Either both countries have the same right to exist, or they do not. But Palestine does not currently exist, and in any event, Israel is not trying to destroy it, or Lebanon. It's the other way around.

You certainly have set up a weak or sham argument, easily refuted. I didn't say you couldn't look up words in the dictionary. I said you lacked understanding of what they meant. It is you who are using strawman arguments.

So Israel is now doing God's work?

You just made my point. You do not understand what you read.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

22. What?

What international law is it that you think says that Israel is not responsible for those civilians it kills?

[Totallybushed]

25. The one that says,

for instance, that civilian hospitals can be bombed if military activities are taking place there. It's in the 3rd Geneva convention, but I forget which article.

Here's the simple version: It is a war crime to use civilians as human shields (Hezbollah is guilty of this). It is NOT a war crime to inflict civilians casualties so long as the civilians casulties are not disproportionate to the military value of the intended target. These are known as "collateral damage", and these casualties are trgic in the extreme, but not a war crime.

On the other hand, deliberately targeting civilians, civilians who, moreover, are not shielding a military objective, IS a war crime. Hezbollah is guilty of that, too.

Read the Geneva Conventions.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

28. Several points.

Firstly, there's no possible way that the civilian casualties inflicted by Israel could be described as proportional to the military value of their intended targets.

Secondly, many of Israel's targets have been things where there clearly was no Hezbollah activity, (U.N. ambulances, for example, and refugees) and many more places where the evidence for such is skimpy, unless you're willing to take the word of the IDF at face value, which I'm certainly not.

I think it is fairly clear that Israel is deliberately inflicting civilians casualties on Lebanon, in an attempt to cow the population into turning on Hezbollah, using the presence of Hezbollah militants and in some cases probably false claims thereof to justify it to the world. And that *is* a war crime.

It is clear that bombing Lebanon is *not* making Israel safer; it isn't succeeding in stopping Hezbollah firing rockets. The most likely purpose is to terrorise civilians.

[Totallybushed]

31. To answer your points

Firstly, that seems to be a matter of opinion. It's very vague isn't it? A weakness of international law.

Second, you are not aware, are you, of the Hezbollah tradition of using ambulances to stage attacks. The presence of militants does tend to justify attacks. That isn't a war crime.

The most likely purpose is to destroy hezbollah. Nobody said it would be easy or quick. Yes, I think it makes Israel safer. A dead enemy can't fire rockets down on helpless civilians.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

32. Are you familiar with Greek mythology?

One of the twelve labours of Hercules was to destroy a beast called the Hydra, that was terrorising the swamps of Lernea. It had poisonous breath and twelve heads, but what made it truly fearsome was that whenever you cut one off, another two grew in its place, making it even more dangerous.

According to the legend, the only way Hercules was able to destroy it was by calling in his servant, Iolaus, who came and scorched each of the hydra's necks as Hercules cut it off, leaving nothing but ash and bones.

Of course, neither Hercules nor Iolaus had any moral qualms about doing so - after all, it was only a hydra-heads, not humans.

Just something to think about.

[Totallybushed]

36. Oh, I think I

understand you. But why don't we put your point in plain English.

It's better to let monster raze and destroy than to do something effective about it.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

37. To put my point in simple terms.

Every military action Israel takes against Hezbollah will create more terrorists than it kills or disarms. The Israeli government clearly doesn't give a damn about arab suffering, but simple self-interest ought to make it realise this is a bad approach.

No force short of genocide will make Israel safe.

The only thing the Israeli government can possibly do to make its people safer is to establish a just peace.

You talk about doing something effective about it. If doing some effective by military force were an option, the Israeli government's policy would still be wrong and evil because of the number of civilians it's killing, but it would at least have a case to be made for it. *But it isn't*. The only effective thing that can be done is a just peace.

[Totallybushed]

39. You are calling

for the total destruction of Israel and the genocide of any Jews foolish enough to remain in the MidEast. Just so you understand what you are calling for.

And I disagree as to whether military force is effective, or not. Eventually the terrorists will get tired of dying in vain, and eventually the civilian population will throw them out. The number of civilians killed is basically because they either allow, or are forced to let, Hezbollah hide among them. They HOPE for civilian casualties. But Israel is not obliged to refrain from taking out legitimate military targets just because they are hidden among civilians. That is NOT a part of international law. Neither are accidental civilian casualties based on faulty intelligence.

What IS forbidden is deliberate targeting of civilians, a Hezbollah specialty. What is also forbidden is hiding among civilians. Another specialty of Hezbollah, and, in fact, all Arab militant groups.

I agree with you, the civilian casualties are tragic and horrific, but let's put the blame where the blame belongs. On Hezbollah.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

41. Oh, grow up.

I'm not calling for the destruction of Israel.

I find it impossible to believe that you think I'm not calling for the destruction of Israel.

You can't seriously believe you'll convince anyone reading this that I'm calling for the destruction of Israel.

So why bother?

[Totallybushed]

42. Then you are

fooling yourself. What you are asking for will result in the destruction of Israel. So that is what you are calling for.


Obviously I won't convince YOU.

[laura888]

17. Absolutely. Well said. n/t

[Donald Ian Rankin]

21. No, that's hypocricy.

Hezbollah is responsible for those civilians it kills.

Israel is responsible for those (far, far more numerous) civilians it kills.

Anything else is a hypocritical double standard.

[Totallybushed]

26. No, it's not.

Israel is entitled, and right to do so, to take out military targets. It is in no way its fault that Hezbollah just happens to like to situated it's rocket lauchers, etc, among civilians.

It is, actually, morally, and legally, Hezbollah's fault for the civilian casualties inflicted by Israel.

Anything else is willful ignorance.

Read the Geneva conventions. Parse them carefully.

[Igel]

4. If the US suddenly said that Canada has no right

to exist Canada should be highly upset. The direct implication of 'Canada has no right to exist' is 'there is no legitimate authority or power in the land currently called "Canada".' If 'Canada' is metonymic for 'Canadian government', that's where it stops; if it's metonymic for the citizens and culture of the territory, then there's a worse implication.

I can only think of two reasons to make such a claim. One is to be able to assert a different claim, and legitimize actions to realize that second claim. This is Hamas and Hezbollah, in their own words. The "Zionist entity" has no claim over the territory; it properly belongs to Muslims, i.e., Palestinians. Asserting and realizing their claim to the land is a duty; otherwise the land is de jure in the state the West Bank and Gaza are in--occupied by people, but without a recognized government.

The other is to be able to buy something for recognition. It's the route that Jordan and Egypt took.

[ComerPerro]

5. Freepers say that all the time, lol

[Igel]

9. Calling Nasrallah and Mesh'al

freepers ... now *that* will get you in trouble.

[uppityperson]

6. guilt, collective guilt.

I agree. Nowhere is it written that the USA empire must stand forever either.

[sandnsea]

7. Tell it to the Native Americans n/t

[KingFlorez]

8. You're right

It's more that independent nations have right to be secure.

[Totallybushed]

10. Yeah, but Israel exists.

Hezbollah doesn't want it to.

That's the root of their conflict.

One must win; one must lose.

[laura888]

16. No. Hezbollah doesn't like Israel's...

...aggressive tactics.

Israel is a very bad neighbor.

[Totallybushed]

19. Hezbollah doesn't

like Israel's agressive tactics??

LOL!! I'll bet that's true.

Still, Hezbollah started this fight, and can end it by returning the captured Israelis soldiers and laying down their arms.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

20. That's not true.

Hezbollah's stated aim is, very clearly, the destruction of Israel.

I think it not improbable that it might be possible to get it to abandon that ambition if Israel were to make reasonable concessions, but I have little doubt that most members of Hezbollah, if presented with a button that would kill all Israelis, would push it.

[treestar]

24. Most members of Hezbollah, maybe, but not necessarily most

Arabs or most Lebanese. And how long did it take to get to that point?

Hezbollah is a nonstate actor, like Al Qaeda. It is complex to deal with them in terms of war vs. organized crime. Nonstate actors fall in between, we don't have a lot of precedent for dealing with them, yet they can cause a lot of harm.

And we're not coming up with any plan, either the US or Israel, than apparently to pretend they are the equivalent of the army of a nation that "allows" them to be there, it would seem without regard to whether or not that nation even has the capability.

And that may just be creating more enemies and more support of that nonstate actor.

[Totallybushed]

27. Hezbollah doesn't

want concessions. They will just interpret them as weaknesses. They want the destruction of Israel and will settle for nothing less.

Take your head out of the sand, if you believe Israel has the right to exist.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

29. Your certainty is unjustified

Saying that Hezbollah would not be willing to trade an end for attacks in exchange for an Israeli offer to withdraw to the Green Line, concede joint control of Jerusalem, help establish a viable Palestinian state, release political prisoners and negotiate a fair settlement on refugees, before Israel has even offered such, is foolish. I think it's fairly certain that some members of Hezbollah wouldn't accept such; I also think it's fairly certain that others would, and, crucially, it would massively reduce popular support for violence. Some attacks on Israel would probably continue for half a generation or so, but at a much reduced rate.

I believe that Israel has the right to exist; I don't believe it has the right to bomb Lebanon; I don't think there is any real chance of attacks on it ending or reducing substantially until it makes the above concessions, no matter how much force it uses.

[Totallybushed]

30. All that for

LOL!! Total victory for Hezbollah.


Hezbollah dreams big. I don't think Israel will agree, nor should they.

Why should they be subject to attacks for half a generation? Look, Israel can only negotiate with an entity that can, and will, control it population, and prevent attacks on Israel.

So far, that entity does not exist in Lebanon, nor among the Palestinians. Until it is, you can't just negotiate with one group after another. Jeez!!

[Donald Ian Rankin]

33. If you regard a just peace as total victory for Hezbollah

then I'm all for a total victory for Hezbollah.

However, that it's stated aims include the destruction of Israel, and as such a result would clearly be the best possible thing for Israel, I wouldn't regard it as such.

Irrespective of *should*, Israel *will* be subject to attacks until it makes peace, and for half a generation (I guess, although the measure of time is somewaht arbitrary) afterwards, because too many of the inhabitants of neighbouring nations will have had a family member killed by Israelis, or had their home destroyed, or lost a limb.

However, the sooner Israel establishes a just peace, the sooner that half generation will be over.

I do agree with you that - since Israel deliberately marginalised the moderates in Palestine to avoid appearing responsible for the failure to make peace - there is no one body who can negotiate on behalf of all Israel's opponents. That's not an insurmountable obstacle, though. It does mean, however, that the first step towards peace has to come from Israel - it has to make it clear that it's willing to negotiate in good faith and - crucially - to make the concessions it's going to have to make, and has a moral duty to make.

[Totallybushed]

34. A "just" peace

means, for Hezbollah, the total destruction of Israel. No amount of lies or obfuscation can hide that fact.

And if a peace were reached, then all, all, attacks would have to cease. The government with which Israel had made peace would be obligated to stop all attacks orginating on its soil and punish all terrorist activities. If not, Israel would be be obliged to stop it for them. Their moral and legal obligation is to their own citizens, not those of nations trying to destroy them.

The whole point of peace is the violence STOPS. Israel should, for half a generation, submit itself to any Muslim who felt aggrieved to attack it? I don't think so.

[Totallybushed]

35. On edit:

Looks like I duplicated somewhat. I didn't see where my first post went in. I'll leae it though

A "just" peace, for Hezbollah involves the total destruction of Israel. "Peace" means that the violence STOPS. Israel has no obligation to subject its citizens to "half-a'generation" of violence without retaliation. If any Arabs feel "aggrieved", well, they'll just have to get over it. Israelis have lost family members, too. After a peace treaty has been signed, all further violence, except in self-defense, is criminal murder.

Frankly, I'm all for total victory for Israel. That is, it lives in peace with its neighbors with Jerusalem as its capital.

Oh, c'mon, Israel didn't marginalize anybody, deliberately or otherwise. The failure to make peace has always been the fault of the Palestinians, who will not settle for less than everything they want: the destruction of Israel.

Look, two sides want the same land. Looks like, unfortunately, they will have to fight it out. And that's a shame.

Time and time again Israel has made concessions, and only gotten more violence for it. It's time for the Arab side to make a few concessions, just to show their good faith.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

38. I don't think you understand.

"A "just" peace, for Hezbollah involves the total destruction of Israel."

No, that's not a just peace. When I say "just", I don't mean "just for one side or the other", I mean "just". Many of the arab militants wouldn't consider a just peace a total victory, I agree, but enough of them would consider it enough to begin the end of the violence.




"Frankly, I'm all for total victory for Israel. That is, it lives in peace with its neighbors with Jerusalem as its capital."

That's a vain hope. Israel will *never* be able to have both peace and an undivided Jerusalem, and it has no right to the latter. Which would you prefer?




""Peace" means that the violence STOPS. Israel has no obligation to subject its citizens to "half-a'generation" of violence without retaliation."

Israel has no *alternative*. Such attacks *will* happen, and Israel can't prevent them, but they're the least worst scenario.




"If any Arabs feel "aggrieved", well, they'll just have to get over it. Israelis have lost family members, too. After a peace treaty has been signed, all further violence, except in self-defense, is criminal murder."

Most of the attacks on Israel are already criminal murder. The argument for Israeli concessions to make a just peace is a) pragmatic - it's the only thing that will end the violence - and b) the rights of the overwhelming majority of the Palestinians who are not, despite what Israel would like us to believe, terrorists. It's *not* that it would end the "right" of arabs to attack Israeli civilians; no such right exists.




"Oh, c'mon, Israel didn't marginalize anybody, deliberately or otherwise. The failure to make peace has always been the fault of the Palestinians, who will not settle for less than everything they want: the destruction of Israel."

Total utter bullshit. Israel and the US had a deliberate policy of not negotiating with Arafat, who was completely willing to make peace and acknowledge Israel's right to exist if Israel had been willing to concede a completely reasonable set of demands; we can only speculate at the reason for this, but I think it's fairly clearly because Israel didn't want international pressure to be placed on it to make the concessions it refused to make at Camp David (and don't bother claiming that the failure of that was Arafat's fault - Israel offered a swiss cheese state with Israel claiming much of the most fertile ground and the aquifers, very little of Jerusalem, and no compromise on refugees). The failure to make peace has always been almost wholly Israel's, for refusing to offer the minimum necessary.



"Time and time again Israel has made concessions, and only gotten more violence for it. It's time for the Arab side to make a few concessions, just to show their good faith."

Israel has made small concessions - the obvious analogy is a thief who gives back a little of what he's stolen. Until they're willing to concede the minimum demands presented at Camp David - which are really not terribly extreme - the onus is on them. From a pragmatic as opposed to a moral point of view, the first step *has* to come from Israel because post Arafat there is no Arab side; there are lots of factions and no one person with authority to speak for all of them.

[Totallybushed]

40. And I KNOW you don't understand.

but enough of them would consider it enough to begin the end of the violence.

Peace occurs between countries. When a peace treaty is signed, both parties are obliged to refrain from hostilities, AND TO PREVENT attacks from their own soil. Failure to do so means hotilites have resumed. All Arab groups must be controlled by the signing country, or there is no one to make peace with.



That's a vain hope. Israel will *never* be able to have both peace and an undivided Jerusalem, and it has no right to the latter. Which would you prefer?

Im sure that like me, the Israelis would prefer peace. But this would be one of the things to be negotiated.




""Peace" means that the violence STOPS. Israel has no obligation to subject its citizens to "half-a'generation" of violence without retaliation."

Israel has no *alternative*. Such attacks *will* happen, and Israel can't prevent them, but they're the least worst scenario.

Of course they have an alternative. If the Arab country that is supposed to be at peace with Israel permits such a thing, Israel is morally obligated to defend itself.




"If any Arabs feel "aggrieved", well, they'll just have to get over it. Israelis have lost family members, too. After a peace treaty has been signed, all further violence, except in self-defense, is criminal murder."

Most of the attacks on Israel are already criminal murder. The argument for Israeli concessions to make a just peace is a) pragmatic - it's the only thing that will end the violence - and b) the rights of the overwhelming majority of the Palestinians who are not, despite what Israel would like us to believe, terrorists. It's *not* that it would end the "right" of arabs to attack Israeli civilians; no such right exists.

well, you said one true thing, most of the attack on Israel ARE criminal murder, and war crimes. Israel has made concessions, time and again. they will not, however, cannot, and should not offer what the palestinains really want, the "right of return". I've never seen that Israeli statement about most palestianins being terrorists. Do you hae a link or a reference.




"Oh, c'mon, Israel didn't marginalize anybody, deliberately or otherwise. The failure to make peace has always been the fault of the Palestinians, who will not settle for less than everything they want: the destruction of Israel."

Total utter bullshit. Israel and the US had a deliberate policy of not negotiating with Arafat, who was completely willing to make peace and acknowledge Israel's right to exist if Israel had been willing to concede a completely reasonable set of demands; we can only speculate at the reason for this, but I think it's fairly clearly because Israel didn't want international pressure to be placed on it to make the concessions it refused to make at Camp David (and don't bother claiming that the failure of that was Arafat's fault - Israel offered a swiss cheese state with Israel claiming much of the most fertile ground and the aquifers, very little of Jerusalem, and no compromise on refugees). The failure to make peace has always been almost wholly Israel's, for refusing to offer the minimum necessary.

Every word you stated is false. Arafat again and again proved that he woulod not bargain in good faith. He embezzled millions form his own people. He lied about his origins. The demands weren't reasonable, but involved the destruction of Israel. The 'minimum necessary' is total surrender. The ARabs have tried that time and again, and had their asses handed to them by the IDF. It will happen this time too.



"Time and time again Israel has made concessions, and only gotten more violence for it. It's time for the Arab side to make a few concessions, just to show their good faith."

Israel has made small concessions - the obvious analogy is a thief who gives back a little of what he's stolen. Until they're willing to concede the minimum demands presented at Camp David - which are really not terribly extreme - the onus is on them. From a pragmatic as opposed to a moral point of view, the first step *has* to come from Israel because post Arafat there is no Arab side; there are lots of factions and no one person with authority to speak for all of them.

First off, NOTHING WAS STOLEN. NO one was run off from their village, they left voluntarily at the behest of their Arab "brothers" who sent an army to destroy Israel and got beaten. Similar aggfression is 1967 resulted in Jordan, not the, until then non-existent, palestinian people losing the WEst Bank.

Get your facts straight.

[treestar]

23. Nations developed over history

They set themselves up, were strong enough to exercise jurisdiction and defend themselves.

The "right to exist" is just an emotional thing, as in "so you're saying Israel has no right to exist?" from a snide poster trying to create the strawman that if Israel is criticized for bombing civilians, that such criticism is tantamount to saying it has no "right to defend itself," so as to try to back a person into a corner and force them to agree with their position.

It ignores the issue of what might constitute "defense" and what might constitute "offense." Conflating the two and pretending there is no difference.

If I said Israel had no right to a military and should just let the Arabs overtake it, I would be denying its "right to defend itself/exist." But if I say maybe they should not indiscriminately bomb civilians in a neighboring country, I am not denying such, no matter how many bad faith posts trying to claim that I did.

[kentuck]

43. Only after 1948...

Palestine was a country in 1947.

[cali]

44. No it wasn't

What we call Palestine and Israel and Jordan were part of the British Empire.

[kentuck]

45. It was called Palestine on the maps of the time...

I have one on my wall.

[cali]

46. Yes it was called Palestine

but that doesn't mean it was a nation. Fact is, it never was. From, I believe, the early 16th century, Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire. That rule lasted nearly 500 years until it came under British rule in 1918.

[michaelpush]

47. If anyone has a right to exist,

where does that right come from? God? Other countries? The easter bunny? If anyone is doing Gods work, why, is he too busy? Cant do it himself? Why would he trust humans to do it anyway? This is ridiculous!The only way to stop fighting is to help each other, which, unfortunately isn't in the plan.