“Ceasing to exist” can mean two things in this kind of context: 1) ceasing to exist period, as in the tsunami wiping it out or the people being massacred; or 2) ceasing to exist in its present fashion. Nobody has provided a single cite to show that everyone disputing Israel’s right to exist mean number 1 as opposed to number 2. I’ll give you a historical example: East Germany ceased to exist in 1990. Were the people massacred? No – there was simply a political rearrangement. Was anybody arguing that East Germany should no longer exist calling for the massacre of all East Germans? Of course not.
And do you want to take accountability for all the pro-Zionists out there? The Meir Kahanes? The Jerry Falwells? The Pat Robertsons? All the ultra-orthodox nutjobs you were decrying in another thread?
Well yes, I do feel accountable for them, especially the ones here in my country, over whom I have some modicum of control. But you can’t compare the two camps. Taking an anti-Israeli position is taking an active role; for me, being pro-Israeli is basically passive. It’s not something I have any choice about - I am who I am, and no-one on Earth should have to justify his own existance. If people I don’t like take my side, I can complain, but I’m not about to turn against myself.
You can’t blame an Israeli for being pro-Israeli, just like you can’t blame a Palestinian for being pro-Palestinian. Being for yourself is entirely natural It’s the “anti-” people you want to look out for.
Actually, isn’t Palestine itself a counter-example? Many people seem to think that Palestine should not be allowed to exist unless and until its government officially endorses the existence of Israel. Thus Palestine’s right to existence is considered dependent on its governmental policies.
With respect, I think you’ve got it wrong. When people say that Israel has no right to exist, it’s because they believe that the way Israel came into being was itself wrong and illegal, not (just) because of their current policies. According to them, Israel should not exist because from the very beginning it was founded on the theft of land that did not belong to them.
Now you could argue that the same applies to the US with regard to Native Americans, but in this instance the status quo has gone on for so long that people have come to accept it as fact . No-one is seriously suggesting that the US be dissolved and all its land handed back to the Native Americans. Israel, however, was created in living memory and there are still many people who were affected by it’s creation and who believe that something can still be done about it.
Ignoring that their argument is based on a rather substantial untruth, it’s an interesting perspective. We’ve done this debate to death, and, revisionist history aside, looking at actual land ownership under the Turks and British would be much better than falsely claiming that it was owned by the people who would later become known as Palestinians.
Well, if that is what people actually mean when they talk about Israel’s right to exist, then that’s a valid position to argue from (though I disagree with it).
I might not have been clear, but if someone is arguing that Israel should not exist, then I think they’re wrong, but at least they’re making sense. My main point was to say that “a nation has no right to exist” doesn’t mean the same thing as “a nation needs to treat its people equally,” as Sal Ammoniac has been insisting, in posts like:
I liken those guys to a few Black Americans saying that Liberia should not have been created.
They might have a point, but since I rather like Israel, and from numerous business visits can confirm that it both exists and is very impressive at developing its infrastructure, I’ll opt for saying that they might be right … but they are a bit late in the game.
They add a bit of colour (or monochrome) to the ‘conference’ and have a good opportunity to say that it might not have been 6m - perhaps 5m, perhaps 7m - they will also be able to say that genocide is disgusting, but no more or less disgusting than killing the same number of people for totally non racial reasons.
I think that they are nutters, but I think that their presence is benign.
I must confess that this time last year I was explaining how my slightly unusual computer system works to three very talented Israeli programmers, all of which were first generation immigrants from Russia. I could not stop myself asking them whether they would go back ‘home’ to show people how to do things.
I think that an Israeli trained diaspora might be beneficial.
Would you be prepared to allow second, third, fourth — nth generation immigrants to Israel to be not diasporad if they didn’t want to be diasporad to other parts of the planet that are not off limits to them?