Saturday, August 16, 2008

"Rights to Exist"

Ive been thinking about this lately. Israel and its supporters constantly cite the ZIonist regime's "right to exist". What does this even mean? Regimes don't have a "right to exist". They either do exist, or they don't because they are overthrown by the people living under them. Did people say that Iranians rejected the Shah's regime's "right to exist"? Will people say that the Syrian opposition rejects the Baathist regime's "right to exist"?  Supporters of ZIonism have fabricated a fake "right" to swing the discussion away from the death and destruction that ISrael has brought on the region. In other words, next time someone talks about the reactionary Saudi regime, just say they reject Saudi Arabia's "right to exist".  Zionism, like reactionary Islam and its regime in Saudi Arabia, does not have a "right to exist", it must be rejected and fought against. That is all. 


Yitzchak Goodman said...

If "reactionary Islam" is bad, then why isn't that mentioned in your "why I reject Hamas" post? Who shouldn't be rejected? The PFLP?

DebunkingZionism said...

Certainly, Hamas isn't nearly as reactionary as the Saudi Wahabi brand. But your right, i mentioned how Hamas has been often a little too interested in getting rid of pornography in gaza than in fighting Israel. Youre not listening.

Yerushalimey said...

I really don't get what you're trying to say here.
You seem to say that Israel exists, but that it should be overthrown "by the people living under them (it)."
Who is living "under" Israel?

Are you proposing that every country that exists should be overthrown by the people living under them"?
I'm all for justice and an end to oppression. Why are you so intent on focusing on Israel (and, in this case, maybe Syria and Saudi Arabia)? Is there no injustice no threat to humanity anywhere outside the Middle East? By asking this, am I doing something wrong (diverting the conversation from Israel)?
If one group has no right to swing the discussion away, I don't see why enemies of Zionism should have a "right" to swing the discussion toward the death and destruction they delight in accusing Israel of and away from the death and destruction in other parts of the world or away from all the good that Israel has done and continues to do.
It's your blog, so you have the right to say what you want here. Why do you object when bloggers or commentators who support Zionism/Israel say what they want?

(I like the way you end up by writing' "That is all." It reminds me of Oscar Wilde.)

Yitzchak Goodman said...

Will people say that the Syrian opposition rejects the Baathist regime's "right to exist"?

This isn't such a good analogy. When Israelis talk about their right to exist, they mean their right not to be subjected to attacks meant to destroy them, to bring about a world in which there is no Israel. For Israel's more extreme enemies that involves a vision of the Jews (or very many of them) being killed or driven out. For other enemies that involves a vision of the transfer of enough Arabs into the country to render the Jews a minority. The removal of president-for-life Assad and the Ba'athist political system would not necessarily involve the end of Syria itself or big changes to its population base. If that was being seriously threatened we probably would speak of Syria's right to exist.