Democrats losing all credibility in denial of overwhelming evidence..

[hollodero]

(04-03-2024, 12:33 PM)Dill Wrote: "Israel has a right to exist as part of a two-state or one-state solution to the Palestinian problem. It doesn't have right to exist as an ethnic state which occupies territory gained in war with intent to cleanse and annex." 

There is no "cannot exist" in that statement. Just a recognition that in current international law (and humanitarian ethics), there is no "right" to territory seized in war. (And no "right" for any state to "exist.)

Since this debate goes nowhere anyway, I will restate that I understand an uneasy feeling about the underlined part. It's odd to me how one would muse about something like "right to exist" in the first place and then set conditions for said right, like being part of a x-state solution, having the right intents or fufilling conditions for multiethnicity, or not living up to initial ideas. Seems wording like that is not brought up for other states, not even north korea or younger ones. No one would claim Croatia or East Timor doesn't have the right to exist in particular versions. And might values lie as they do, Israel does still exist in its current form and given the surroundings, I too wonder whether statemets like "does not have the right to exist as state which does this and that [aka things they are probably deemed guilty of]" are appropriate under any context.