Somehow other nuclear powered nations not liking your declaring them as not having a right to exist is, yes a bad, dangerous, thing. A very understandable and predictable thing. Something that is understood as a threat to be responded to.
Just IMO, I didn’t take that to mean that action to eradicate is necessarily the next step, though it could be.
One could say Saudi Arabia doesn’t have the right to toss homosexuals off the top of buildings without any context or plan to invade, etc.
I think that’s why it’s a dumb question. Should NK be allowed to exist (as it is constituted now)? By your logic, the answer must be “yes”, since “no” is a threat and their response to that threat could be dangerous.
You DO see the difference between “Saudi Arabia doesn’t have the right to throw homosexuals off of buildings” and “Saudi Arabia doesn’t have the right to exist”, right?
I do. But it could be a distinction without a difference if the atrocities committed go beyond some admittedly subjective line. I would say NK does not have the right to exist in its current soul-crushing form, for example. That’s a pretty uncontroversial sentiment.
That doesn’t mean I think we ought to invade.
Yes, countries do not have rights. People have rights, and governments are legitimate only to the extent that they protect those rights.
I would not say that Russia doesn’t have a “right to exist”, but I want Putin gone ASAP, and if the process of him going somehow involves Russia splitting into multiple countries, I don’t really care, as long as most of those countries are more democratic than Russia currently is.
That’s a fair point, but I take “that government’s rights” to mean their authority to govern. When that authority is egregiously abused in an ongoing manner, we rightly question that government’s legitimacy.
Governments are just collections of people, too.
Oh, so now we’re pretending that saying a country doesn’t have some immutable metaphysical property granting it the eternal right to exist is the same as actively desiring the destruction of that country? Cool story, bro.
That’s a statement about the government of North Korea. That’s not what anyone is talking about. No one would complain in the same way if you said that “the Netanyahu regime doesn’t have the right to exist”.
Whatever happens to the current government of North Korea, nobody argues that they don’t have a right to self determination. That when the time comes and they cast off the Kim regime, they will be able to choose if they want to reunify with South Korea or forge a new path, but either way there will be a Korean state in the region now called North Korea.
When people refuse to say that Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state, they are in essence saying that the Jewish people should not have self determination.
We may be talking past each other then. All people have a right to self determination. Using NK as an example again, self determination is a lost cause. NK should not have the right to govern that way.
I mean, yes, that’s true? When we say “Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state”, that is a short and simplified way to say “The Jewish People like all Peoples have the right to self determination. Israel is the state where the Jewish people have expressed their right to self determination, which they have a right to do.”
But clearly not all Peoples do have the right to self-determination. There are lots of ethnic/national groups in the world that don’t have their own countries, some of which would really like to do so. But then other people who disagree also live in the places those people would like to make their new country!
It’s not practical to espouse a general rule that any group of people that wants their own country should get to have one, so Israel’s legitimacy can’t be defended on the base of that rule.
I agree that the government of North Korea is illegitimate because it is dictatorial. A regime change casting out the Kims through internal revolt would almost certainly be a good thing, for example.
But if China used North Korea’s government’s behavior as an excuse to conquer North Korea while claiming to be liberators, that would be a bad thing.
Actually, that’s a perfect example. Hasan Piker has justified the Chinese conquest of Tibet and compared it to the US Civil War, arguing that because Tibet at the time was a feudal society it didn’t have the right to exist and China was doing Tibetans a favor by liberating them. And maybe you could make a case for this being true if, after casting down the Tibetan serf system, they created an independent Tibetan Republic to allow the Tibetans to practice self determination. But that’s not what they did. They conquered the only Tibetan state and made it Chinese.
Of course they do. The only reason to argue that some don’t is the racist assertion that some Peoples are subhuman. Why should some Peoples have the right to self determination while others do not?
And they should, and we should support them in achieving this goal.
That’s too bad; they don’t get to stop their neighbors from expressing their right to self determination. Of course, they also have their own right to self determination. If they feel that strongly about not living in a nation of their neighbors, they’re welcome to move.
First, it doesn’t always have to be a country; most Native American sovereignties aren’t seeking full independence and if one did there would be a lot of logistical challenges that they would have to overcome. But yes, of course they have a right to self determination and if they agree that they want to sever their relationship with the United States, we should work towards the best way to make that happen.
And as far as it not being practical to espouse this as a general rule, tell that to the United Nations. It’s literally the principal upon which the whole system is built.
Jews have the right to self determination, just like all other people have (or should have). And like all other people, Jews have no right to displace others, kill civilians, discriminate and oppress, etc. Jews have no more right to the land that makes up Israel than Palestinians.
There’s no conflict between any of these rights. The right to self determination does not necessarily mean the right to the land that makes up Israel right now.
That’s literally the point of Christian Nationalism though.
The fact is that it’s not a simple black-and-white, good-and-bad idea. That’s why a question like “does Israel have the right to exist as a Jewish state” is so loaded and difficult. Because it’s not a simple question at all. The “yes” answer to that question has some bad, frankly evil connotations depending on your interpretation.
It could mean that there is a country founded as a place for a group of people to have sanctuary and be able to exist together without persecution as they had faced for centuries, and to me that is a good, no, a great thing for all of humanity.
It could also mean that anyone non-Jewish is subject to persecution in that nation, which is evil and it happens.
That’s why my answer to the question isn’t an unequivocal “yes” and I’m not going to denounce anyone who also won’t answer “yes”.
Other than the fact that they completely lack a Nation to build a Nation State around hence their need to try and manufacture a white identity from scratch by appealing to Christianity and weirdo racism?
If the People that Christian Nationalists wanted to build a Nation-State around actually existed, it might be justifiable for them to seek self determination. But they don’t have that.
The existence of Christian Nationalists doesn’t invalidate actual Nation-States that are primarily composed of white people, but those are not the same thing.
To some people, it also means a country where everyone is obligated to follow Jewish religious law.
Yes, Christian Nationalism is an example of when an ethnic/religious group who wants their own nation can be a bad thing. That doesn’t mean it always is a bad thing, but it can be a bad thing.
And Israel isn’t that country now. It doesn’t even have a state religion. Which I find really refreshing; anyone who doesn’t know much about the nation would assume it’s a theocracy, and it isn’t. Which is another reason why the question is a bit complicated.
No, Israel is certainly not a theocracy. A significant minority of the population would like it to be, though. Of course, the same is true of the USA.