"Right to Exist"?

[DanielRB]

Hi All,

I've only heard this phrase used in connection with the existence of the State of Israel. But what exactly does it mean? Do other states possess such a right? What causes a state to have this right? Is it possible to lose this right? Who, if any group, should gurantee this right? What if two states are fighting over the same territory for the right to exist (for example, the USA and CSA)? Which one has the legitamate claim to exist, and what claim is illegitamate?

Your thoughts would be appreciated.

Peace,
Daniel

 

[seeker777]

Israel is surrounded by Nations who want to destroy them.

Israel asserts, ' Israel has the right to exist.' Israel guarantee's themselves that they will continue to exist and will fight to keep that right.

War decides who has the right to exist and who does not have the right to exist.

It is that simple.

 

[DanielRB]

Israel is surrounded by Nations who want to destroy them.

Israel asserts, ' Israel has the right to exist.' Israel guarantee's themselves that they will continue to exist and will fight to keep that right.

War decides who has the right to exist and who does not have the right to exist.

It is that simple.

Hi Seeker, thanks for your post.

I don't know if I would stop at just saying Israel guarantees that right. I'd include the lavish military aid given by the US and our strong rhetoric in support of Israel as being a tacit guarantee of that right.

But, in the end, I believe you are correct--might makes this right, and the lack of might forfeits it. Countless states have ceased to exist because of military conquest--they had no 'right' to exist.

Peace,
Daniel

 

[ArnautDaniel]

Israel is the only nation ever to insist on a "right to exist".

It all happened back in the 70's when people were close to having a reasonable deal for relations in the Middle East. The Arabs were prepared to come to an arrangement with the fact of Israel.

Of course US and Israeli hawks didn't like this so they upped the Israeli demands to include a recognition of Israel's "right to exist" by the Arabs, thereby squelching everything.

 

[mbig]

Israel is the only nation ever to insist on a "right to exist".

It all happened back in the 70's when people were close to having a reasonable deal for relations in the Middle East. The Arabs were prepared to come to an arrangement with the fact of Israel.

Of course US and Israeli hawks didn't like this so they upped the Israeli demands to include a recognition of Israel's "right to exist" by the Arabs, thereby squelching everything.

What?
Huh?
This post is Beyond belief in inaccurate and outrageous claims.

There are probably 50 more countries that there were 60-80 years ago... based on tribe, religion, nationality, etc.

[Only] ONE of those is Israel. Created by a Vote of the UN - Resolution 181- in 1948, Along WITH a Palestinian State.
Jordan, [Muslim-split-from-India] Pakistan, and Bangladesh were also created in 1947/48/Those years Alone.

The Arabs REJECTED that Palestinian state and chose War instead.

This didn't happen in the "back in the 70's". UNBELIEVABLE.

Indeed the World's obsessed foremost national Cause (Perversely) is the 'Legitimate Rights of the Palestinians' and the NONEXISTANT-but Unique-to the-palestinians 'Right of Return'.
Instead of the Larger and better grounded causes of say Tibetans or Kurds. The latter two true nationalities their own cultures and languages.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

What?
Huh?
This post is Beyond belief in inaccurate and outrageous claims.

There are probably 50 more countries that there were 60-80 years ago... based on tribe, religion, nationality, etc.

[Only] ONE of those is Israel. Created by a Vote of the UN - Resolution 181- in 1948, Along WITH a Palestinian State.
Jordan, [Muslim-split-from-India] Pakistan, and Bangladesh were also created in 1947/48/Those years Alone.

The Arabs REJECTED that Palestinian state and chose War instead.

This didn't happen in the "back in the 70's". UNBELIEVABLE.

Indeed the World's obsessed foremost national Cause (Perversely) is the 'Legitimate Rights of the Palestinians' and the NONEXISTANT-but Unique-to the-palestinians 'Right of Return'.
Instead of the Larger and better grounded causes of say Tibetans or Kurds. The latter two true nationalities their own cultures and languages.

Look at it this way.

Imagine Mexico invaded the US and took the entire Southwest and chased people out of their homes.

Now after a while the US and Mexico are prepared to come to an arrangement whereby they will coexist with the new borders, but then Mexico starts saying:

"Look yankee dogs, we don't merely want to coexist with mutual recognition of the current borders, we want you to acknowledge our right to your old Southwest, and that it was just an proper that we came along and took it, and that you have to what happened to your people when we chased them out of their homes was just and our right to do."

That would likely squelch the deal, and this is exactly what Israel's peculiar demand of a "right to exist" did in the Middle East, and just what it was designed to do.

 

[DanielRB]

Look at it this way.

Imagine Mexico invaded the US and took the entire Southwest and chased people out of their homes.

Now after a while the US and Mexico are prepared to come to an arrangement whereby they will coexist with the new borders, but then Mexico starts saying:

"Look yankee dogs, we don't merely want to coexist with mutual recognition of the current borders, we want you to acknowledge our right to your old Southwest, and that it was just an proper that we came along and took it, and that you have to what happened to your people when we chased them out of their homes was just and our right to do."

That would likely squelch the deal, and this is exactly what Israel's peculiar demand of a "right to exist" did in the Middle East, and just what it was designed to do.

It seems like you and mbig's main disagreement is whether or not Israel accepted a two-state solution in the 1970's or not. Am I right in understanding that you believe they rejected it (wanting it all), and mbig, is it your contention that they wanted a two-state solution in the 1970's (willing to accept the existence of a Palestinian state?

Daniel

 

[mbig]

Look at it this way.

IOW, you have Really No Facts to back your now debunked claims.
So we try another 'way'.

Imagine Mexico invaded the US and took the entire Southwest and chased people out of their homes.

Now after a while the US and Mexico are prepared to come to an arrangement whereby they will coexist with the new borders, but then Mexico starts saying:

"Look yankee dogs, we don't merely want to coexist with mutual recognition of the current borders, we want you to acknowledge our right to your old Southwest, and that it was just an proper that we came along and took it, and that you have to what happened to your people when we chased them out of their homes was just and our right to do."

That would likely squelch the deal, and this is exactly what Israel's peculiar demand of a "right to exist" did in the Middle East, and just what it was designed to do.

Again.
It's the Palestinians, not Israel, that have some 'peculiar' and Unique 'Rights'. (It's State, and the NONEXISTANT-but-Unique-to-them 'Right of Return'.)
Unlike ANY other Group in History.. the Palestinians also have their own Refugee org in the UN, the UNRWA.
Among Other UNIQUE International indulgences, accorded no one else.

The above anaolgy is also Ridiculous as No One 'Invaded' Palestine.
The Land was APPORTIONED by the UN to the remaining Palestinians (the ones that didn't get the bulk/77% of the Mandate, Jordan) and the Resident Jews.

Any Displacements were the result of the Arab Started War. There was no 'Invasion' by Jews.

You have some Trite anti-Israel ideas that you certainly know Not of what you speak.

Like it happening "Back in the 70's" !!!!

Our education system has gone to pot.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

IOW, you have Really No Facts to back your now debunked claims.
So we try another 'way'.


Again.
It's the Palestinians, not Israel, that have some 'peculiar' and Unique 'Rights'. (It's State, and the NONEXISTANT-but-Unique-to-them 'Right of Return'.)
Unlike ANY other Group in History.. the Palestinians also have their own Refugee org in the UN, the UNRWA.
Among Other UNIQUE International indulgences, accorded no one else.

The above anaolgy is also Ridiculous as No One 'Invaded' Palestine.
The Land was APPORTIONED by the UN to the remaining Palestinians (the ones that didn't get the bulk/77% of the Mandate, Jordan) and the Resident Jews.

Any Displacements were the result of the Arab Started War. There was no 'Invasion' by Jews.

You have some Trite anti-Israel ideas that you certainly know Not of what you speak.

Like it happening "Back in the 70's" !!!!

Our education system has gone to pot.

The "right of return" is BS just like the "right to exist" is.

Essentially right now the "right of return" functions as the Arab world's BS answer to Israel's BS "right to exist".

They should both drop them.

Anyway, to quote Noam Chomsky:

To my knowledge, the concept 'right to exist' was invented by US-Israeli propaganda in the 1970s, when the Arab states (with the support of the PLO) formally recognized Israel's right to exist within secure and recognized borders (citing the wording of UN 242). It was therefore necessary to raise the bars to prevent the negotiations that the US and Israel alone (among significant actors) were blocking, as they still are. They understood, of course, that there is no reason why Palestinians should recognize the legitimacy of their dispossession -- and the point generalizes, as noted, to just about every state; maybe not Andorra.

 

[billwald]

Do the American Indian Nations have a right to exist?

 

[DanielRB]

Do the American Indian Nations have a right to exist?

Hi billwald, thanks for your post

Good question. Some of them technically still exist, such as the Navajo Nation, but they are hardly soverign in the traditional sense of the term. Others have been completely destroyed, either through assimilation or physical destruction.

Should those that still exist--that is, have identifiable members--have a right to a separate nation? What about the native Hawaiians?

The history is full of nations built and destroyed. At what point, if any, should a nation that has been destroyed as a political entity have the "right" to start existing again? The world determined in 1991 that Kuwait had the "right" to exist and not be absorbed into Iraq...but what of Biafra? What of the CSA? What of the Jebusite kingdom of Jerusalem, before David's conquest?

I have a feeling that there are no clear answers from a moral perspective, only the clear judgment of who has been militarily successful.

Daniel

 

[DanielRB]

Hi Arnaut, thanks for your post

The "right of return" is BS just like the "right to exist" is.

Essentially right now the "right of return" functions as the Arab world's BS answer to Israel's BS "right to exist".

They should both drop them.

Anyway, to quote Noam Chomsky:

To my knowledge, the concept 'right to exist' was invented by US-Israeli propaganda in the 1970s, when the Arab states (with the support of the PLO) formally recognized Israel's right to exist within secure and recognized borders (citing the wording of UN 242). It was therefore necessary to raise the bars to prevent the negotiations that the US and Israel alone (among significant actors) were blocking, as they still are. They understood, of course, that there is no reason why Palestinians should recognize the legitimacy of their dispossession -- and the point generalizes, as noted, to just about every state; maybe not Andorra.

I would agree that the Palestinian "right of return" is the mirror image of the Israeli "right of return"--though the Palestinians are talking about returning after a few decades, whereas the Israelis are talking about returning after twenty centuries. It's hard to see why the Israelis have more of a claim, unless you invoke a theological reason--i.e., God gave them this land, and they have the right to it, period.

As to the "right to exist" I guess it sounds like a pretty meaningless phrase, in the end. Nations come into existence and pass into non-existence without any lawyer coming in and saying "no, sorry Mr. Conquerer, this nation has a 'right to exist' and therefore you have to give it back."

For the USA to "gurantee" such a right for any nation but itself is dangerous and leads us to all kinds of "entangeling alliances" as Washington warned against.

Daniel

 

[Douger]

State, Nation, State, Nation:
The two are separate words, they mean different things and are not interchangeable. Using them interchangeably, really mucky mucks the whole discussion.
Okay, I'm ducking out of here, sorry to interrupt.

 

[DanielRB]

State, Nation, State, Nation:
The two are separate words, they mean different things and are not interchangeable. Using them interchangeably, really mucky mucks the whole discussion.
Okay, I'm ducking out of here, sorry to interrupt.

You're absolutely right, Douger--thanks for your post. It is important to keep those terms clear.

Peace,

Daniel

 

[mbig]

The "right of return" is BS just like the "right to exist" is.

Essentially right now the "right of return" functions as the Arab world's BS answer to Israel's BS "right to exist".

They should both drop them.

Anyway, to quote Noam Chomsky:

To my knowledge, the concept 'right to exist' was invented by US-Israeli propaganda in the 1970s, when the Arab states (with the support of the PLO) formally recognized Israel's right to exist within secure and recognized borders (citing the wording of UN 242). It was therefore necessary to raise the bars to prevent the negotiations that the US and Israel alone (among significant actors) were blocking, as they still are. They understood, of course, that there is no reason why Palestinians should recognize the legitimacy of their dispossession -- and the point generalizes, as noted, to just about every state; maybe not Andorra.

1. 'Right of Return' IN the context of Israel is an INTERNAL INVITATION, Not an International Right.

When Palestinans get their State they can Do the Same.
BUT they don't have a 'Right to Return' to Israel!

2. Palestinians have NOT recognized Israel and the PLO Charter has NOT been amended to do so Despite promises years ago.

Chomsky is about as reliable a source on this topic as Yasser Arafat.

[The PLO Charter in Regards Recognition/Destruction of Israel]
[.....]
In the 1997 Hebron Agreement, it was specifically noted, again, that the PLO was commited to, "Complete the process of revising the Palestinian National Charter."
Thereafter, Arafat and the PLO governing bodies insisted that they were in compliance based on the PNC vote in 1996, but legal analysts do Not agree. In January 1998, Chairman Arafat sent letters to President Clinton and Prime Minister Tony Blair purporting to "put to rest" concerns about the PNC resolution and setting out a list of articles supposedly canceled or amended by the decision.
But personal statements by Arafat have no legal effect; only a vote of 2/3 of the PNC can ammend the Covenant (Article 33).

On December 14, 1998, the Palestinian National Council, in accordance with the Wye Memorandum, which required compliance with the earlier agreements, convened in Gaza in the presence of US President Clinton and voted to reaffirm their decision to amend the Covenant. But, again, this was insubstantial window dressing. Their action didn't actually amend the Covenant and the Palestinian Authority Remained in violation of the lengthening series of agreements.

Although the Palestinian National Council (PNC) has twice taken formal decisions to revise the Palestinian National Covenant (1996 and 1998 ) calling for Israel's destruction, the PNC Chairman, Salim Za'anoun, stated on February 3, 2001, in the official Palestinian Authority newspaper, that the Palestinian Covenant remained Unchanged and was still in force [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, 3 February 2001, as translated by MEMRI].

Former CIA Director James Woolsey said:

"Arafat has been like Lucy with the football, treating the rest of the world as Charlie Brown. He and the PNC keep telling everyone they've changed the charter, WITHOUT actually changing it."

This saga of the Covenant revision is an example of the lack of good faith on the part of Arafat and the Palestinian Arabs in the course of the Oslo peace process. But, it probably does not make a difference whether the Covenant is actually revised or not. The hatred and violence directed against Israel by the Palestinian Arabs does not originate with the piece of paper called the Palestinian National Covenant..."

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_plo_charter_revise.php

 

[Chipahualca]

1. 'Right of Return' IN the context of Israel is an INTERNAL INVITATION, Not an International Right.

When Palestinans get their State they can Do the Same.
BUT they don't have a 'Right to Return' to Israel!

They don't have a right to return to Israel, indeed, but they have a right of return to their homeland that is now colonized by jews, like Jerusalem, Haifa, Ashdod, Ashqelon which are not part of israel right now, just under israeli occupation. That's the formal legal status.

 

[mbig]

They don't have a right to return to Israel, indeed, but they have a right of return to their homeland that is now colonized by jews, like Jerusalem.....

Jerusalem

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08364a.htm
(Catholic Encyclopedia)

Present condition of the City (1905)

""5. Jerusalem (El Quds) is the capital of a sanjak and the seat of a mutasarrif directly dependent on the Sublime Porte. In the administration of the sanjak the mutasarrif is assisted by a council called majlis ida ra; the city has a municipal government (majlis baladiye) presided over by a mayor. The total population is estimated at 66,000. The Turkish census of 1905, which counts only Ottoman subjects, gives these figures:
Jews, 45,000; Moslems, 8,000; Orthodox Christians, 6000; Latins, 2500; Armenians, 950; Protestants, 800; Melkites, 250; Copts, 150; Abyssinians, 100; Jacobites, 100; Catholic Syrians, 50. During the Nineteenth century large suburbs to the north and east have grown up, chiefly for the use of the Jewish colony. These suburbs contain nearly Half the present population..""
-----------------------------------
The Growth of Jerusalem

....... Jews Muslims Christians Total
1838 6,000 5,000 3,000 14,000
1844 7,120 5,760 3,390 16,270 ... .The First Official Ottoman Census
1876 12,000 7,560 5,470 25,030 .... .Second """"""""
1905 40,000 8,000 10,900 58,900 ....Third/last, detailed in Catholic Encyc link above
1948 99,320 36,680 31,300 167,300
1990 353,200 124,200 14,000 491,400
1992 385,000 150,000 15,000 550,000

http://www.testimony-magazine.org/jerusalem/bring.htm

- - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - -

... Haifa, Ashdod, Ashqelon which are not part of israel right now, just under israeli occupation. That's the formal legal status.

'Palestinians' (the term is so Fuzzy and new for 'arabs'), Don't have a right to come to Israel.

All of the Refugees were the result of the Arab-Started War in 1948.

Israel was created in 1948 from Res 181. No one was Forced to leave.
It was a partition-for-Rule/Change of sovereignty for some arabs, but NO ONE had to leave.
Many did leave at the Urging of Arab leaders to get out of the way while they wiped out the Jews.. to return and collect the spoils. That's War.

Of the original 600,000 refugees only perhaps a few thousand are even living.
However, this Ridiculous situation has now balooned/ PREPOSTEROUSLY to 4 Million, 2nd, 3rd, and even 4th generation 'refugees'.

Many didn't leave/Stayed in Israel, now comprising 20% of it's populace.

All the OTHER refugee groups of the period have been settled.
2 MILLION 1945 Sudeten Germans, moved and absorbed by their Brethren.
10's of MILLIONS fom the 1947 Pak/India Partition.. all moved and settled.
The above not only setttled but Codified in Law there is NO 'right of return'.

Only a few hundred thousand 'palestinians' are not settled!
Kept in Refugee Camps by THEIR Arab Brethren; DENIED Citizenship, Land Ownership, and Jobs, to be used as Pawns against The Jews.

 

[Chipahualca]

Jerusalem

(Catholic Encyclopedia)

Present condition of the City (1905)

""5. Jerusalem (El Quds) is the capital of a sanjak and the seat of a mutasarrif directly dependent on the Sublime Porte. In the administration of the sanjak the mutasarrif is assisted by a council called majlis ida ra; the city has a municipal government (majlis baladiye) presided over by a mayor. The total population is estimated at 66,000. The Turkish census of 1905, which counts only Ottoman subjects, gives these figures:
Jews, 45,000; Moslems, 8,000; Orthodox Christians, 6000; Latins, 2500; Armenians, 950; Protestants, 800; Melkites, 250; Copts, 150; Abyssinians, 100; Jacobites, 100; Catholic Syrians, 50. During the Nineteenth century large suburbs to the north and east have grown up, chiefly for the use of the Jewish colony. These suburbs contain nearly Half the present population..""
-----------------------------------
The Growth of Jerusalem

....... Jews Muslims Christians Total
1838 6,000 5,000 3,000 14,000
1844 7,120 5,760 3,390 16,270 ... .The First Official Ottoman Census
1876 12,000 7,560 5,470 25,030 .... .Second """"""""
1905 40,000 8,000 10,900 58,900 ....Third/last, detailed in Catholic Encyc link above
1948 99,320 36,680 31,300 167,300
1990 353,200 124,200 14,000 491,400
1992 385,000 150,000 15,000 550,000

Does that mean New York belongs to Israel also ? Does that mean Marseilles belongs to Algeria ?

Jerusalem was attributed international status by the UN in 1947, it's suburbs are part of Palestine, and not of israel. And that's just the way it stays until today, even though the jewish settlers commited the worst atrocities imaginable by man to make the original residents flee.

'Palestinians' (the term is so Fuzzy and new for 'arabs'), Don't have a right to come to Israel.

All of the Refugees were the result of the Arab-Started War in 1948.

Nobody started the civil war between jews and muslims, it was a conflict started by a minority of jewish terrorists freshly emigrated from Europe and following the radical doctrines of Jabotinsky and the likes.

By the way it does not matter who started the war, from a legal viewpoint. All that matters is that during this war, people were chased away from their homelands, and these people indeed do have a right of return to their homeland according to international law, a right that israel is not granting 5 million palestinian fugitives today. Instead of abiding by the law, israel settles jews on top of the demolished palestinian cities. How atrocious. Gullible propagandized american citizens applaud more war crimes by the "jewish nation". This is probably one of the most perverted situations mankind had ever to face throughout it's history.

Only a few hundred thousand 'palestinians' are not settled!
Kept in Refugee Camps by THEIR Arab Brethren; DENIED Citizenship, Land Ownership, and Jobs, to be used as Pawns against The Jews.

It does not matter whether these people can be labelled as "settled" or not. All that matters is that they were chased away from their homeland by jewish terrorists who now have the duty of settling them back into their homeland that has been stolen from them. It's israel's crimes, so israel has to get the thing straight. This is not in the responsibility of neighbouring nations, but israel's alone. That's the root and fuel of the palestinian conflict, and as long as israel remains a brutal and dictatorial apartheid regime, the mark of the devil will shine on american zionist foreheads.

 

[TheNewWorldMan]

The Jews were there first. The historicity of Jews from millennia past in the land now called Israel is undeniable.

And let's not forget that Bill Clinton brokered a deal that would have given the Palestinians a state. They refused, opting to continue sacrificing Jews to Allah.

And let's also not forget that the worst enemy of the Palestinians is...the Palestinians themselves, with their Islamic fanaticism, and death-worship. While other societies accord respect to scientists, singers, authors, and statemen, Palestinians heap adulation on suicide bombers. Is it any wonder the rest of the world moves forward while "Palestine" withers?

 

[Nathan45]

Can someone explain to me why Israel should care to negotiate with palestinian terrorists like hamas if they will not even affirm Israel's "Right to Exist" ? It seems like if something as basic as "I affirm your country's right to exist" is off the table, what's the point of negotiating with the palestinians?