Does Israel have the right to exist?

[Set the Unbound]

Lol And how is this going to occur?

1. United States economy collapses.
2. Aid to Israel ends.
3. Syria and Iran attack.
4. Israel threatens to nuke Syria and Iran.
5. Rest of world threatens to counter-nuke Israel.
6. Israel surrenders.

Iran and Syria couldn't take over Israel's postal service.

Even with the Godmodding above, Israel is in no danger.

[Malgrave]

Lol And how is this going to occur?

1. United States economy collapses.
2. Aid to Israel ends.
3. Syria and Iran attack.
4. Israel threatens to nuke Syria and Iran.
5. Rest of world threatens to counter-nuke Israel.
6. Israel surrenders.

How are Iran going to invade Israel? Syria is a tad busy atm as well.

[Voltronica]

1. United States economy collapses.
2. Aid to Israel ends.
3. Syria and Iran attack.
4. Israel threatens to nuke Syria and Iran.
5. Rest of world threatens to counter-nuke Israel.
6. Israel surrenders.

Iran and Syria couldn't take over Israel's postal service.

Even with the Godmodding above, Israel is in no danger.

Apparently no one has read Ezekiel 38...why am i mentioning this??

[Costa Fiero]

Why don't they legally have a right to it? If the countries who had it before wanted it so badly, maybe they shouldn't have attacked Israel.

Of course. And it isn't like the Arabs tried to forcefully annex Israel in 1948.

[Set the Unbound]

Why don't they legally have a right to it? If the countries who had it before wanted it so badly, maybe they shouldn't have attacked Israel.

Of course. And it isn't like the Arabs tried to forcefully annex Israel in 1948.

The USA tried to annex Canada in 1812.

Canada should take everything north of the Mason-Dickson Line, eh?

For Canadians only, of course.

[Costa Fiero]

Of course. And it isn't like the Arabs tried to forcefully annex Israel in 1948.

The USA tried to annex Canada in 1812.

Canada should take everything north of the Mason-Dickson Line, eh?

For Canadians only, of course.

Trade Alaska? Wait, that was Russian. Besides, it wasn't the first time. Hell, even countries like New Zealand and Australia have annexed colonies.

[St George of England]

There is no such thing as a right to exist. Natural Selection and Social Darwinism explain so.

Social Darwinism has been debunked so much twins throughout the first world are wondering where there beds have gone.

[Set the Unbound]

The USA tried to annex Canada in 1812.

Canada should take everything north of the Mason-Dickson Line, eh?

For Canadians only, of course.

Trade Alaska? Wait, that was Russian. Besides, it wasn't the first time. Hell, even countries like New Zealand and Australia have annexed colonies.

We have??? And New Zealand, too!

Where? I wanna git me some lands!

[Primorum Libertorum]

I dislike Israel's existence, but, due to my Doctrine of Right by Force of Arms, I can't say it doesn't deserve to exist. It's earned its existence manifold, and still does today.

This!

I laugh at the couchpotatoes who claim that it had no right to exist. If they want to contest this right, then they shall show up with an army at the borders. Otherwise, they are just something in between pompous asses to megalomaniac madmen. Oh, and you guys can save all this nonsense about how Israelis or Arabs have a "historical" or "religious" or "ethnical" legitimation to live on this patch of land. What kind of reasoning is that anyway?

[St George of England]

Ok, the facts, it seems, are this:

Isreal has a right to exist under the Partitioning Agreement. As does Palestine.

Israel has a right to exist in it's current borders only if said land has been recognised as Israeli under international law in the form of treaties, etc. Again, the same applies to Palestine.

Does Israel have a right to infringe upon Palestinian territory with settlements and the wall? Probably not. In the same way that Palestine does not.

[Ralkovia]

Ok, the facts, it seems, are this:

Isreal has a right to exist under the Partitioning Agreement. As does Palestine.

Israel has a right to exist in it's current borders only if said land has been recognised as Israeli under international law in the form of treaties, etc. Again, the same applies to Palestine.

Does Israel have a right to infringe upon Palestinian territory with settlements and the wall? Probably not. In the same way that Palestine does not.

If Palestine is given its own country and it fires a quassam rocket then Israel would most certainly and legitimately be able to declare war, invade, and occupy all over again. And we know for a fact that the Palestinians have never been able to keep peace. So what would be the point?

Hamas will not keep peace until Israel is wiped off the map.

[Set the Unbound]

Ok, the facts, it seems, are this:

Isreal has a right to exist under the Partitioning Agreement. As does Palestine.

Israel has a right to exist in it's current borders only if said land has been recognised as Israeli under international law in the form of treaties, etc. Again, the same applies to Palestine.

Does Israel have a right to infringe upon Palestinian territory with settlements and the wall? Probably not. In the same way that Palestine does not.

If Palestine is given its own country and it fires a quassam rocket then Israel would most certainly and legitimately be able to declare war, invade, and occupy all over again. And we know for a fact that the Palestinians have never been able to keep peace. So what would be the point?

Hamas will not keep peace until Israel is wiped off the map.

If Israel is given its own country and its army or settlers fire bullets or artillery then Palestine would most certainly and legitimately be able to declare war, invade and occupy all over again. And we know for a fact that Israeli settlers have never been willing to keep peace.

Fighting fire with fire is the Middle Eastern way...

[Scalietti]

If Palestine is given its own country and it fires a quassam rocket then Israel would most certainly and legitimately be able to declare war, invade, and occupy all over again. And we know for a fact that the Palestinians have never been able to keep peace. So what would be the point?

Hamas will not keep peace until Israel is wiped off the map.

If Israel is given its own country and its army or settlers fire bullets or artillery then Palestine would most certainly and legitimately be able to declare war, invade and occupy all over again. And we know for a fact that Israeli settlers have never been willing to keep peace.

Fighting fire with fire is the Middle Eastern way...

Except...

That is already Palestine's viewpoint however they are unable to invade and occupy Israel all over again so instead they are crying foul and bitching to the rest of the world. We know for a fact that Israel never strikes first.

Screw Palestine. It's Israeli territory anyway.

[Ralkovia]

If Palestine is given its own country and it fires a quassam rocket then Israel would most certainly and legitimately be able to declare war, invade, and occupy all over again. And we know for a fact that the Palestinians have never been able to keep peace. So what would be the point?

Hamas will not keep peace until Israel is wiped off the map.

If Israel is given its own country and its army or settlers fire bullets or artillery then Palestine would most certainly and legitimately be able to declare war, invade and occupy all over again. And we know for a fact that Israeli settlers have never been willing to keep peace.

Fighting fire with fire is the Middle Eastern way...

You forget that Israel only attacks when provoked. Hamas on the other hand would happily continue to launch rockets into Israel.

[Set the Unbound]

If Israel is given its own country and its army or settlers fire bullets or artillery then Palestine would most certainly and legitimately be able to declare war, invade and occupy all over again. And we know for a fact that Israeli settlers have never been willing to keep peace.

Fighting fire with fire is the Middle Eastern way...

You forget that Israel only attacks when provoked. Hamas on the other hand would happily continue to launch rockets into Israel.

You forget Hamas only attacks when provoked. Israeli settlers, on the other hand, would happily continue to snipe into Palestine.

Ah, the narrow-minded bigotry that fuels these things...

[Vitaphone Racing]

You forget that Israel only attacks when provoked. Hamas on the other hand would happily continue to launch rockets into Israel.

You forget Hamas only attacks when provoked. Israeli settlers, on the other hand, would happily continue to snipe into Palestine.

Ah, the narrow-minded bigotry that fuels these things...

Speaking of narrow-minded bigotry, I am assuming you are conveniently forgetting how the surrounding Arab states have attacked and invaded Israel multiple times since 1948? And I suppose you are going to justify Gaza being used as a missile platform by Hamas when the Gaza was given to Palestine as an appeasement?

[Meowfoundland]

We have??? And New Zealand, too!

Where? I wanna git me some lands!

Papua New Guinea was Australian until the '70s. And NZ still has the Cook Islands, Niue and Tokelau.

[Set the Unbound]

We have??? And New Zealand, too!

Where? I wanna git me some lands!

Papua New Guinea was Australian until the '70s. And NZ still has the Cook Islands, Niue and Tokelau.

PNG was a UN Protectorate, like Kosovo, except Australia had to pay for it.
Now that they are independent, we still subsidize them about half a billion a year.

I had a friend from the Cook Islands, crazy jazz musician.
Cook Islands are self-governing, but NZ is obliged to defend them.

Israel is welcome to treat Palestine the same way.

[Set the Unbound]

You forget Hamas only attacks when provoked. Israeli settlers, on the other hand, would happily continue to snipe into Palestine.

Ah, the narrow-minded bigotry that fuels these things...

Speaking of narrow-minded bigotry, I am assuming you are conveniently forgetting how the surrounding Arab states have attacked and invaded Israel multiple times since 1948?

You mean Arab armies crossed the borders first in 1973. Israeli armies crossed the border first and attacked first in 1956, 1967, 1978, 1982 and 2006? 1948 was very mutual. And of course, innumerable border incidents were precipitated between the major wars by all sides.

And I suppose you are going to justify Gaza being used as a missile platform by Hamas when the Gaza was given to Palestine as an appeasement?

I suppose you are going to justify Israel being used as a sniping platform by settlers when half of Palestine was given to Israel as an appeasement?

The world needs to reward civil rights and cooperation rather than cheer intransigence.

[St George of England]

You forget Hamas only attacks when provoked. Israeli settlers, on the other hand, would happily continue to snipe into Palestine.

Ah, the narrow-minded bigotry that fuels these things...

Speaking of narrow-minded bigotry, I am assuming you are conveniently forgetting how the surrounding Arab states have attacked and invaded Israel multiple times since 1948? And I suppose you are going to justify Gaza being used as a missile platform by Hamas when the Gaza was given to Palestine as an appeasement?

I am assuming you are conveniently forgetting how Israel attacked and invaded Egypt, Syria and Jordan during the 6 Day War? And I suppose you are going to justify massacres of Palestinian refugees in camps under Israeli guard?

[St George of England]

Ok, the facts, it seems, are this:

Isreal has a right to exist under the Partitioning Agreement. As does Palestine.

Israel has a right to exist in it's current borders only if said land has been recognised as Israeli under international law in the form of treaties, etc. Again, the same applies to Palestine.

Does Israel have a right to infringe upon Palestinian territory with settlements and the wall? Probably not. In the same way that Palestine does not.

If Palestine is given its own country and it fires a quassam rocket then Israel would most certainly and legitimately be able to declare war, invade, and occupy all over again. And we know for a fact that the Palestinians have never been able to keep peace. So what would be the point?

Hamas will not keep peace until Israel is wiped off the map.

Now we come to the tricky question of 'who is Palestine?'. The people, obviously, but, considering this is a question of statehood/nationhood, we have to consider the government. Or, rather, governments. Hamas, apparently, controls Gaza, although the actual Hamas organisation honoured the truce, unlike offshoots and rival militant Gaza-based groups. The PLO controls the West Bank, and, afaik, is recognised by most as the head of the Palestinian semi-state.

Look at this way, say a British National, converted to Islam, explodes a bomb in New York. Does that mean it's an attack by Britain on America? Or, similarly, a Canadian convert does the same. Is the US then justified in attacking Canada?

[Mirkana]

Here's how I've come to define what gives a nation the right to exist:

1. Any human being has the right, if he or she so chooses, to live in the land he or she was born and raised in. No person should be expelled from their homeland because of the actions of their ancestors. There only exception is if a person is exiled as punishment for a crime.
2. The majority of legitimate residents in any given region have the right to determine what nation they live under.
3. Sovereign states have the right to determine that someone who was not born and raised in their territory is not a legitimate resident.

This is the only reasonable way to determine national rights without either
1. Destroying the legitimacy of many nations, particularly those in the Western Hemisphere.
2. Accepting right by conquest.

The United States, for instance, has legitimacy because the majority of its people wish to be part of it. It does not matter that their ancestors came here and overwhelmed the natives, and committed many crimes against them. What matters is what the people who live there now wish.

The Confederacy is a more complex issue. Yes, they did vote for secession. However, I should point out that the slaves didn't get to vote. I'll do some research on the demographics, but the legitimacy of the Confederacy is an academic issue. Most people living today in the South do not wish to secede.

Conquest does not, in and of itself, grant legitimacy, in that even if a conqueror imports enough of its loyal citizens into the conquered nation to grant the conqueror a majority, those citizens are not legitimate residents.

By this logic, Israel and Palestine both have the right to exist. The issue of Jerusalem could and should be decided by referendum.

EDIT:
OK, I went through the data on the Confederacy secession, and here are my assumptions:
1. The fact that women and children did not vote would not have altered the outcome.
2. That all slaves would have voted for secession.
3. That the delegate votes represented the proportional will of the people.

Under these assumptions, Arkansas, Florida, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia had legitimacy. Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina did not.

[Scientific socks]

Yet Israel can hold a cease fire whilst Hamas continues to build tunnels to smuggel weapons and fires rockets upon Israel. Only one country can hold a cease fire. That should mean alot

Which one would that be? Oh, you mean Egypt?

Definitely not Israel, unless artillery fire and sniping don't count as breaches.

Egypt was ages ago. There has not been one cease fire with Palestine where the terrorist groups have not continued to build tunnels and fire rockets from over the border. There is no point listening to the please of a cease fire from Hamas as Hamas still preaches the death of Israel. The Hamas charter still preaches an Islamic state over Israeli territory.

[St George of England]

Which one would that be? Oh, you mean Egypt?

Definitely not Israel, unless artillery fire and sniping don't count as breaches.

Egypt was ages ago. There has not been one cease fire with Palestine where the terrorist groups have not continued to build tunnels and fire rockets from over the border. There is no point listening to the please of a cease fire from Hamas as Hamas still preaches the death of Israel. The Hamas charter still preaches an Islamic state over Israeli territory.

Hamas abided by the recent ceasefire. Hamas opponents in Gaza did not.

[Dixie Republic]

Israel has the right to exist
Palestine does not