Israel's "Right to Exist"?

[Hossfly]

Was the Hebron Massacre institutional violence or the degenerate act of one deranged person?

It was neither. It was a riot that resulted from a bunch of zionist hooligan's going down to that Wailing Wall and declaring it jewish property.

Just checking.

 

[ItsjustmeIthink]

just what exactly is it?

i hear the term "right to exist" used quite a bit when speaking of israel and occasionally, but very rarely, some other states, but no one really explains it or questions the concept.

i mean, who or what gives israel this right to exist? who conferred it upon israel or was it just expressed generally and is applied to all states and would be states? did israel have a right to exist before it became a state? it would seem that such a right to exist would be universal. is it codified or mentioned in some jurisdictional or international legal system? anywhere? does it have any historical or legal precedent or continuity and, if so, from when? where?

does there ever come a time when such a "right to exist" ceases and, if so, when, where, and how?

personally. i have no idea whether israel, or any state, has a "right to exist." it just seems like a very odd concept with no precedent or standing whatsoever.

Balfour Declaration? Just curious.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Israel is like heaven compared to any Muslim shithole, including the Palestinians. Remember over 20% of Israelis are Arab Israelis, and the worlds major faiths including Christianity and Bahaiism have their holiest sites there, and feel totally comfortable and grateful that Israelis are in charge of the place. If you want institutionalized hatred and intolerance, check any Muslim shithole.

25 february, 1994.
cave of the patriarchs.
al khalil, palestine

Was the Hebron Massacre institutional violence or the degenerate act of one deranged person?

Probably some of both.

 

[sealadaigh]

Israel is like heaven compared to any Muslim shithole, including the Palestinians. Remember over 20% of Israelis are Arab Israelis, and the worlds major faiths including Christianity and Bahaiism have their holiest sites there, and feel totally comfortable and grateful that Israelis are in charge of the place. If you want institutionalized hatred and intolerance, check any Muslim shithole.

25 february, 1994.
cave of the patriarchs.
al khalil, palestine

Was the Hebron Massacre institutional violence or the degenerate act of one deranged person?

well, hoss...judging from the pilgramages and the special laws that had to be passed and the purim songs and costumes, i think i am going to have to say it is closer to institutionalised violencr than it is to the act of one deranged madman.

also, i find it very, very odd and almost perverse that the very same people who say israel is a "light unto the nations" and "a beacon of democracy" feel comfortable defending her by comparing her to "muslim shitholes." in fact, it is their go to defense.

now, i have this plan to turn palestine into a paradise and stop suicide bombings and rockets and whatever. here is what we do. we up front give her ten years of the aid package we give to israel, let's say half a trillion. we guarantee them the annual package we gave to israel for the next 20 years. we tell the israelis "back behind the green line and out of east jerusalem...and there you go. we can make up the diff by not giving to israel what we give to the palestinians. there will be a few wrinkles to iron out but...

problem solved, huh? one less "muslim shithole."

 

[ItsjustmeIthink]

25 february, 1994.
cave of the patriarchs.
al khalil, palestine

Was the Hebron Massacre institutional violence or the degenerate act of one deranged person?

well, hoss...judging from the pilgramages and the special laws that had to be passed and the purim songs and costumes, i think i am going to have to say it is closer to institutionalised violencr than it is to the act of one deranged madman.

also, i find it very, very odd and almost perverse that the very same people who say israel is a "light unto the nations" and "a beacon of democracy" feel comfortable defending her by comparing her to "muslim shitholes." in fact, it is their go to defense.

now, i have this plan to turn palestine into a paradise and stop suicide bombings and rockets and whatever. here is what we do. we up front give her ten years of the aid package we give to israel, let's say half a trillion. we guarantee them the annual package we gave to israel for the next 20 years. we tell the israelis "back behind the green line and out of east jerusalem...and there you go. we can make up the diff by not giving to israel what we give to the palestinians. there will be a few wrinkles to iron out but...

problem solved, huh? one less "muslim shithole."

This is more of a speculative tone, but I heard Israel majority party has been losing touch with its citzens and that this ongoing lack of progress in the region is due to their hard-line stance involving religion and with that the belief that waht the palestinians have, they should have.

I know I heard this from a credible source, sadly I can't seem to remember who or what that was :S

 

[P F Tinmore]

just what exactly is it?

i hear the term "right to exist" used quite a bit when speaking of israel and occasionally, but very rarely, some other states, but no one really explains it or questions the concept.

i mean, who or what gives israel this right to exist? who conferred it upon israel or was it just expressed generally and is applied to all states and would be states? did israel have a right to exist before it became a state? it would seem that such a right to exist would be universal. is it codified or mentioned in some jurisdictional or international legal system? anywhere? does it have any historical or legal precedent or continuity and, if so, from when? where?

does there ever come a time when such a "right to exist" ceases and, if so, when, where, and how?

personally. i have no idea whether israel, or any state, has a "right to exist." it just seems like a very odd concept with no precedent or standing whatsoever.

Balfour Declaration? Just curious.

The Balfour declaration was a letter from one criminal to another neither of whom had one inch of rights inside Palestine.

 

[ItsjustmeIthink]

just what exactly is it?

i hear the term "right to exist" used quite a bit when speaking of israel and occasionally, but very rarely, some other states, but no one really explains it or questions the concept.

i mean, who or what gives israel this right to exist? who conferred it upon israel or was it just expressed generally and is applied to all states and would be states? did israel have a right to exist before it became a state? it would seem that such a right to exist would be universal. is it codified or mentioned in some jurisdictional or international legal system? anywhere? does it have any historical or legal precedent or continuity and, if so, from when? where?

does there ever come a time when such a "right to exist" ceases and, if so, when, where, and how?

personally. i have no idea whether israel, or any state, has a "right to exist." it just seems like a very odd concept with no precedent or standing whatsoever.

Balfour Declaration? Just curious.

The Balfour declaration was a letter from one criminal to another neither of whom had one inch of rights inside Palestine.

Again, I know very little on the subject. But isn't a formal declartion by an establised country kinda how most states come to existence, I mean...in a formal way in the eyes of the established global community.

I really don't know much sorry.

But while we're talking about "rights" how are you defining that? Like a legal right or a moral one? I just ask because I remember the Romans were essentially the ones who forced most of the jews out of palestine in the first place. Then subsequent changes of the country heavily invovled violence and upheavels?

Given the history of the area, would superior force = rights?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Balfour Declaration? Just curious.

The Balfour declaration was a letter from one criminal to another neither of whom had one inch of rights inside Palestine.

Again, I know very little on the subject. But isn't a formal declartion by an establised country kinda how most states come to existence, I mean...in a formal way in the eyes of the established global community.

I really don't know much sorry.

But while we're talking about "rights" how are you defining that? Like a legal right or a moral one? I just ask because I remember the Romans were essentially the ones who forced most of the jews out of palestine in the first place. Then subsequent changes of the country heavily invovled violence and upheavels?

Given the history of the area, would superior force = rights?

Before the early part of the last century it was not illegal to invade another country and take what you want. Since then, however, that has become illegal under international law.

 

[sealadaigh]

Was the Hebron Massacre institutional violence or the degenerate act of one deranged person?

It was neither. It was a riot that resulted from a bunch of zionist hooligan's going down to that Wailing Wall and declaring it jewish property.

to many "massacres", too few hebrons. the date i posted was for the baruch golstein spree. i think that was what hoss was responding to.

 

[sealadaigh]

Balfour Declaration? Just curious.

The Balfour declaration was a letter from one criminal to another neither of whom had one inch of rights inside Palestine.

Again, I know very little on the subject. But isn't a formal declartion by an establised country kinda how most states come to existence, I mean...in a formal way in the eyes of the established global community.

I really don't know much sorry.

But while we're talking about "rights" how are you defining that? Like a legal right or a moral one? I just ask because I remember the Romans were essentially the ones who forced most of the jews out of palestine in the first place. Then subsequent changes of the country heavily invovled violence and upheavels?

Given the history of the area, would superior force = rights?

just very briefly, and i will get to more later, but the british government had more right to dictate the course of her american colonies than it did to dictate the course of the palestinian people.

the most simple irish bogtrotter has a better grasp if british language and law than the most learned jurists in the world. experience may be the best teacher, but it is oft a cruel teacher.

a "national home" is not a "state."
"His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people,"
http://www.mbc.edu/faculty/gbowen/BalfourDeclaration.jpg

and that is just for starters. as for this "right to exist", i am beginning to think it means nothing at all. no state has a right to exist. it just exists. it is moot. the mere fact that the palestinians are willing to sit down and negotiate with israel makes the recognition of israel's right to exist implicit. furthermore, that recognition has been expressed in very explicit ways many times, the most notable being the arab peace initiative.

 

[ItsjustmeIthink]

The Balfour declaration was a letter from one criminal to another neither of whom had one inch of rights inside Palestine.

Again, I know very little on the subject. But isn't a formal declartion by an establised country kinda how most states come to existence, I mean...in a formal way in the eyes of the established global community.

I really don't know much sorry.

But while we're talking about "rights" how are you defining that? Like a legal right or a moral one? I just ask because I remember the Romans were essentially the ones who forced most of the jews out of palestine in the first place. Then subsequent changes of the country heavily invovled violence and upheavels?

Given the history of the area, would superior force = rights?

just very briefly, and i will get to more later, but the british government had more right to dictate the course of her american colonies than it did to dictate the course of the palestinian people.

the most simple irish bogtrotter has a better grasp if british language and law than the most learned jurists in the world. experience may be the best teacher, but it is oft a cruel teacher.

a "national home" is not a "state."
"His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people,"
http://www.mbc.edu/faculty/gbowen/BalfourDeclaration.jpg

and that is just for starters. as for this "right to exist", i am beginning to think it means nothing at all. no state has a right to exist. it just exists. it is moot. the mere fact that the palestinians are willing to sit down and negotiate with israel makes the recognition of israel's right to exist implicit. furthermore, that recognition has been expressed in very explicit ways many times, the most notable being the arab peace initiative.

I get it...I think. About the "right to exist" I mean. Are you saying something like no where is there some anceint tablet or doctrine of sorts that dictates the "proper" and/or "improper" actions of man?

Like no centralized, universally accepted source for what dicates mans "right" to anything?
edit: something much older than today's "holy books", like it would have had to intertwined with the origin of man.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Again, I know very little on the subject. But isn't a formal declartion by an establised country kinda how most states come to existence, I mean...in a formal way in the eyes of the established global community.

I really don't know much sorry.

But while we're talking about "rights" how are you defining that? Like a legal right or a moral one? I just ask because I remember the Romans were essentially the ones who forced most of the jews out of palestine in the first place. Then subsequent changes of the country heavily invovled violence and upheavels?

Given the history of the area, would superior force = rights?

just very briefly, and i will get to more later, but the british government had more right to dictate the course of her american colonies than it did to dictate the course of the palestinian people.

the most simple irish bogtrotter has a better grasp if british language and law than the most learned jurists in the world. experience may be the best teacher, but it is oft a cruel teacher.

a "national home" is not a "state."
"His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people,"
http://www.mbc.edu/faculty/gbowen/BalfourDeclaration.jpg

and that is just for starters. as for this "right to exist", i am beginning to think it means nothing at all. no state has a right to exist. it just exists. it is moot. the mere fact that the palestinians are willing to sit down and negotiate with israel makes the recognition of israel's right to exist implicit. furthermore, that recognition has been expressed in very explicit ways many times, the most notable being the arab peace initiative.

I get it...I think. About the "right to exist" I mean. Are you saying something like no where is there some anceint tablet or doctrine of sorts that dictates the "proper" and/or "improper" actions of man?

Like no centralized, universally accepted source for what dicates mans "right" to anything?
edit: something much older than today's "holy books", like it would have had to intertwined with the origin of man.

I think it was written a long time ago something about killing, stealing, and lying.

It is OK to do all that stuff, of course, if you do it in the name of God.

 

[ItsjustmeIthink]

just very briefly, and i will get to more later, but the british government had more right to dictate the course of her american colonies than it did to dictate the course of the palestinian people.

the most simple irish bogtrotter has a better grasp if british language and law than the most learned jurists in the world. experience may be the best teacher, but it is oft a cruel teacher.

a "national home" is not a "state."
"His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people,"
http://www.mbc.edu/faculty/gbowen/BalfourDeclaration.jpg

and that is just for starters. as for this "right to exist", i am beginning to think it means nothing at all. no state has a right to exist. it just exists. it is moot. the mere fact that the palestinians are willing to sit down and negotiate with israel makes the recognition of israel's right to exist implicit. furthermore, that recognition has been expressed in very explicit ways many times, the most notable being the arab peace initiative.

I get it...I think. About the "right to exist" I mean. Are you saying something like no where is there some anceint tablet or doctrine of sorts that dictates the "proper" and/or "improper" actions of man?

Like no centralized, universally accepted source for what dicates mans "right" to anything?
edit: something much older than today's "holy books", like it would have had to intertwined with the origin of man.

I think it was written a long time ago something about killing, stealing, and lying.

It is OK to do all that stuff, of course, if you do it in the name of God.

And I'm not saying anything exists like I mentioned in my previous post. Just to be clear.

No, long before that. Before religion, before the concept of religion, before hunter-gatherer tribes began to congregate. Before language and all that.

I don't think it could exist though. Because if it were to exist, then it would proably been created by man. If it were created by man, then its tainted with man's process of though, whatever that may be. If it were tainted or "corrupted" by man's thinking, then it wouldn't truly be a universal source on which humanity can accuratly rely. Because, no matter what, humans have individual ways of thinking and often react to matters very differently than other humans, i.e. we're not all the same.

I guess, in a way, what I'm trying to descired is a sort of "Guide to Humanity" that would, basically, have to predate human history.

Sorry if I don't make any sense

 

[P F Tinmore]

I get it...I think. About the "right to exist" I mean. Are you saying something like no where is there some anceint tablet or doctrine of sorts that dictates the "proper" and/or "improper" actions of man?

Like no centralized, universally accepted source for what dicates mans "right" to anything?
edit: something much older than today's "holy books", like it would have had to intertwined with the origin of man.

I think it was written a long time ago something about killing, stealing, and lying.

It is OK to do all that stuff, of course, if you do it in the name of God.

And I'm not saying anything exists like I mentioned in my previous post. Just to be clear.

No, long before that. Before religion, before the concept of religion, before hunter-gatherer tribes began to congregate. Before language and all that.

I don't think it could exist though. Because if it were to exist, then it would proably been created by man. If it were created by man, then its tainted with man's process of though, whatever that may be. If it were tainted or "corrupted" by man's thinking, then it wouldn't truly be a universal source on which humanity can accuratly rely. Because, no matter what, humans have individual ways of thinking and often react to matters very differently than other humans, i.e. we're not all the same.

I guess, in a way, what I'm trying to descired is a sort of "Guide to Humanity" that would, basically, have to predate human history.

Sorry if I don't make any sense

You make perfect sense. I believe that most people are good but there are enough bad ones to ruin it for the rest of us.

 

[Roudy]

"Two recent Israeli High Court rulings follow a disturbing trend. On January 11, divided justices ruled 6 - 5 for Israel's Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law.

"It denies citizenship rights to Palestinians with Israeli spouses. Enacted in 2003 as temporary legislation, it was extended twice after its initial expiration date.

"The law empowers the interior minister to grant citizenship only if affected Palestinians identify strongly and cooperate with Israel. They must also contribute to national security. As a result, few qualify.

"In addition, it limits potential eligibility to Palestinian husbands 36 or older and Palestinian wives at least 26.

"A Qara village attorney called the decision a 'declaration of war on Israeli Arabs.' A mixed couple said the decision 'will lead to the expulsion of thousands of families from the country.'

"The Palestinian wife of another mixed couple got temporary permit permission to live with her husband in Acre without legal rights extended Israeli citizens. Her husband, a Haifa University doctoral candidate, wasn't surprised by the ruling, saying:

"'The decision is proof that one shouldn't have faith in the Israeli judicial system. It is clear that the Supreme Court is influenced by the wave of fascism and racism sweeping Israel, and the judges weren't expected to act any other way.'"

Waves of fascism and racism that will swamp the Jewish state unless Jews living there decide if they want to exist in a democratic state or a Jewish one; it's not too different from what we're facing in the US; do we want to live in a democracy or a plutocracy?

What's your choice?

Racist Israeli Supreme Court Decisions

Israel is like heaven compared to any Muslim shithole, including the Palestinians. Remember over 20% of Israelis are Arab Israelis, and the worlds major faiths including Christianity and Bahaiism have their holiest sites there, and feel totally comfortable and grateful that Israelis are in charge of the place. If you want institutionalized hatred and intolerance, check any Muslim shithole.

Johannes Martarsian was walking in the Old City in May 2008 when an young ultra-Orthodox Jew spat at him. Maratersian punched the spitter in the face, making him bleed, and was charged for assault. But Judge Dov Pollock, who unexpectedly annulled the indictment, wrote in his verdict that "putting the defendant on trial for a single blow at a man who spat at his face, after suffering the degradation of being spat on for years while walking around in his church robes is a fundamental contravention of the principles of justice and decency."

Ultra-Orthodox spitting attacks on Old City clergymen becoming daily Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper

Is that before or after the Palestinian terrorists barged into an ancient Church in Bethlehem, held the priest hostage, and used ancient Bibles, some of them artifacts, AS TOILET PAPER?

You really have a problem grasping the reality of the intolerance, hate, and violence that Muslims harbor towards non Muslims.

http://jcpa.org/jl/vp490.htm

 

[Roudy]

Was the Hebron Massacre institutional violence or the degenerate act of one deranged person?

It was neither. It was a riot that resulted from a bunch of zionist hooligan's going down to that Wailing Wall and declaring it jewish property.

Gee! And what right did the Jews have declaring the Wailing Wall as Jewish Property? Heck, that's like Muslims declaring Mecca as Muslim property, or Catholics declaring the Vatican. What right did Jews have declaring what's theirs....THEIR'S?! Jihad! Slaughter all the Jews!

 

[Billo_Really]

You really have a problem grasping the reality of the intolerance, hate, and violence that Muslims harbor towards non Muslims.

Maybe they were still dealing with all the "intolerance, hate, and violence" you spew on a constant basis.

In fact, that's all you do.

 

[Billo_Really]

Gee! And what right did the Jews have declaring the Wailing Wall as Jewish Property? Heck, that's like Muslims declaring Mecca as Muslim property, or Catholics declaring the Vatican. What right did Jews have declaring what's theirs....THEIR'S?! Jihad! Slaughter all the Jews!

Well, the "Wall" is not their's. That area is shared by both religions. Both groups have special connections to that place. But since your side is a bunch of selfish assholes, you're mentally incapable of co-existing with people who don't see things the way you do. And thank God for that.

The only positive thing about you, is that your a good example of a really fucked human being.

 

[Roudy]

Gee! And what right did the Jews have declaring the Wailing Wall as Jewish Property? Heck, that's like Muslims declaring Mecca as Muslim property, or Catholics declaring the Vatican. What right did Jews have declaring what's theirs....THEIR'S?! Jihad! Slaughter all the Jews!

Well, the "Wall" is not their's. That area is shared by both religions. Both groups have special connections to that place. But since your side is a bunch of selfish assholes, you're mentally incapable of co-existing with people who don't see things the way you do. And thank God for that.

The only positive thing about you, is that your a good example of a really fucked human being.

The Wall was built by Jews, idiot. They are the walls of the ancient temple. Arabs have zero rights to the wall, historically and religiously.

"If I were president" I would revoke your citizenship and ship your filthy ass one way to Gaza.

 

[Roudy]

just what exactly is it?

i hear the term "right to exist" used quite a bit when speaking of israel and occasionally, but very rarely, some other states, but no one really explains it or questions the concept.

i mean, who or what gives israel this right to exist? who conferred it upon israel or was it just expressed generally and is applied to all states and would be states? did israel have a right to exist before it became a state? it would seem that such a right to exist would be universal. is it codified or mentioned in some jurisdictional or international legal system? anywhere? does it have any historical or legal precedent or continuity and, if so, from when? where?

does there ever come a time when such a "right to exist" ceases and, if so, when, where, and how?

personally. i have no idea whether israel, or any state, has a "right to exist." it just seems like a very odd concept with no precedent or standing whatsoever.

Balfour Declaration? Just curious.

The Balfour declaration was a letter from one criminal to another neither of whom had one inch of rights inside Palestine.

That would be the Palestinians. Oh wait, unless you're referring to the Jews, they never existed back then. Heh heh heh!