A right to exist doesn't exist. It is a philosophical construct that doesn't exist out of the imagination. No diplomatic imperative exists to support it. No law exists to support it. No entity exists to enforce such a right because it doesn't exist. You may want to consider posting about something less politically nebulous.
Perhaps you can get away with that autocratic, absolutist tone to fellow Muslims, but in the democratic world such a right exists. For instance, perhap you have heard of the United States and its Declaration of Independence?
The fact that no nation has a right to exist has nothing to do with religion. It is absolutist for Muslims as it is for Jews, Christians, Buddhist, Bahai's, etc.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
The US Declaration of Indepedence is not a legal document and it doesn't create a right to exist for the US or any other nation.
The mandatory Power shall use its best endeavours to ensure that an area situated in the territory of the Jewish State, including a seaport and hinterland adequate to provide facilities for a substantial immigration, shall be evacuated at the earliest possible date and in any event not later than 1 February 1948. Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in Part III of this Plan, shall come into existence in Palestine two months after the evacuation of the armed forces of the mandatory Power has been completed but in any case not later than 1 October 1948.
No right to exist established there either.
Btw, philosophically-theologically speaking, I'm probably a lot closer to your belief that no state has a right to exist -- except if God says so. But that conversation is for one of the theologically-oriented board. This is a politics board. And in the realm of politics -- or real world politics -- the existence of government and states, their right to exist and administer for the common good, is one of the oldest components of human civilization.
It's not MY belief that a nation's "right to exist" is non-existant. It's a reality. The notion is not a legal one, only a philosophical one bandied about by political scientists and pro-Israel fanatics (no disrespect intended). I'm not sure why the reality is so difficult to accept since there is nothing in history to prove its that such a right has ever existed or been enforced by law or by God. Governments fall, nations are absorbed and conquered, and no right to exist is recognized by the aggressor. If you can defend your nation, internally and externally, through force, you have a better chance of existing than if you rely on a philosophical "right" to exist.
Disclaimer: The opinions of this member are not primarily informed by western ethnocentric paradigms, stereotypes rooted in anti-Muslim/Islam hysteria, "Israel can do no wrong" intransigence, or the perceived need to protect the Judeo-Christian world from invading foreign religions and legal concepts. By expressing such views, no inherent attempt is being made to derail or hijack threads, but that may be the result. The result is not the responsibility of this member.
The fact that no nation has a right to exist has nothing to do with religion. It is absolutist for Muslims as it is for Jews, Christians, Buddhist, Bahai's, etc.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
The US Declaration of Indepedence is not a legal document and it doesn't create a right to exist for the US or any other nation.
Thomas Jefferson and his friends disagree with you. But thanks for your opinion. (And thank God they are the conscience of the United States, not you.)
The mandatory Power shall use its best endeavours to ensure that an area situated in the territory of the Jewish State, including a seaport and hinterland adequate to provide facilities for a substantial immigration, shall be evacuated at the earliest possible date and in any event not later than 1 February 1948. Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in Part III of this Plan, shall come into existence in Palestine two months after the evacuation of the armed forces of the mandatory Power has been completed but in any case not later than 1 October 1948.
Btw, philosophically-theologically speaking, I'm probably a lot closer to your belief that no state has a right to exist -- except if God says so. But that conversation is for one of the theologically-oriented board. This is a politics board. And in the realm of politics -- or real world politics -- the existence of government and states, their right to exist and administer for the common good, is one of the oldest components of human civilization.
It's not MY belief that a nation's "right to exist" is non-existant. It's a reality.
It's your reality. Or realy according to you. I doubt I will be able to convince you that there is a reality outside of your view of things. But there is.
The fact that no nation has a right to exist has nothing to do with religion. It is absolutist for Muslims as it is for Jews, Christians, Buddhist, Bahai's, etc.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
The US Declaration of Indepedence is not a legal document and it doesn't create a right to exist for the US or any other nation.
Thomas Jefferson and his friends disagree with you. But thanks for your opinion. (And thank God they are the conscience of the United States, not you.)
Strange that that notion bolsters you. Thomas Jefferson and his friends are long dead, and their notions were also philosophical, not actual. It matters little what the conscience of the nation is, it still doesn't create a right to exist anywhere, even for the US.
The mandatory Power shall use its best endeavours to ensure that an area situated in the territory of the Jewish State, including a seaport and hinterland adequate to provide facilities for a substantial immigration, shall be evacuated at the earliest possible date and in any event not later than 1 February 1948. Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in Part III of this Plan, shall come into existence in Palestine two months after the evacuation of the armed forces of the mandatory Power has been completed but in any case not later than 1 October 1948.
Btw, philosophically-theologically speaking, I'm probably a lot closer to your belief that no state has a right to exist -- except if God says so. But that conversation is for one of the theologically-oriented board. This is a politics board. And in the realm of politics -- or real world politics -- the existence of government and states, their right to exist and administer for the common good, is one of the oldest components of human civilization.
It's not MY belief that a nation's "right to exist" is non-existant. It's a reality.
It's your reality. Or realy according to you. I doubt I will be able to convince you that there is a reality outside of your view of things. But there is.
This is not a matter of opinion, J. If you're so convinced that a right to exist is a reality, show us where it's been a reality. Show us where a nation saved itself from conquest or destruction by asserting a "right to exist". That will be where the rubber meets the road.
The notion is not a legal one, only a philosophical one bandied about by political scientists and pro-Israel fanatics (no disrespect intended).
And pro-Muslim fanatics (no disrespect intended).
What has this got to do with Muslims? Nothing.
Disclaimer: The opinions of this member are not primarily informed by western ethnocentric paradigms, stereotypes rooted in anti-Muslim/Islam hysteria, "Israel can do no wrong" intransigence, or the perceived need to protect the Judeo-Christian world from invading foreign religions and legal concepts. By expressing such views, no inherent attempt is being made to derail or hijack threads, but that may be the result. The result is not the responsibility of this member.
I think that you are missing the point; at least as I see it. What is holding up a peace agreement between the Palestinians and Israelis is not that the Palestinians don't recognize Israel's right to exist, but rather that for so long they denied the right of the Jews to national independence. This is not important to Israel but rather the ending of that denial and the recognition of the Jews' right to a state is a necessary condition for the Palestinians to be able to make peace with the State of Israel.
I think that you are missing the point; at least as I see it. What is holding up a peace agreement between the Palestinians and Israelis is not that the Palestinians don't recognize Israel's right to exist, but rather that for so long they denied the right of the Jews to national independence. This is not important to Israel but rather the ending of that denial and the recognition of the Jews' right to a state is a necessary condition for the Palestinians to be able to make peace with the State of Israel.
Habesor
I also don't recognize a right to a Jewish state. IMO, it's an anachronism from a colonial past. That doesn't mean I don't recognize Israel as a state. That's a demonstrable reality. I just don't give credence to the idea that any ethnic, racial or religious group has a right to a state that prefers them. Having lived in many places that promoted such an idea, I find that notion to be among the basest of human instincts that we should strive to overcome.
But, that's why I'm 1SS.
Disclaimer: The opinions of this member are not primarily informed by western ethnocentric paradigms, stereotypes rooted in anti-Muslim/Islam hysteria, "Israel can do no wrong" intransigence, or the perceived need to protect the Judeo-Christian world from invading foreign religions and legal concepts. By expressing such views, no inherent attempt is being made to derail or hijack threads, but that may be the result. The result is not the responsibility of this member.
When you come down from Sinai with two tablets of stone in your hand, I'll be more open to the possibility that your opinion is reality. Other than that, you're just another human being expressing your viewpoint from within your fishbowl. As I said, I didn't think you'd be able to view things from outside your fishbowl.
This is not a matter of opinion, J. If you're so convinced that a right to exist is a reality, show us where it's been a reality. Show us where a nation saved itself from conquest or destruction by asserting a "right to exist". That will be where the rubber meets the road.
You are equating enforcement of a right with existence of a right. They are two separate things. The inability to enforce a right does not disprove exist of a right -- as much as totalitarian-autocratic regimes and ideologues try.
As I tried to point out, Thomas Jeffereson and the framers of the US constitution believed certain truths to be self-evident, including a government's attempt to secure these self-evident truths for its citizens ("...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...").
Now, you may not agree with that -- and it is your self-evident right to hold whatever opinions you want -- but others disagree with you.
When you come down from Sinai with two tablets of stone in your hand, I'll be more open to the possibility that your opinion is reality. Other than that, you're just another human being expressing your viewpoint from within your fishbowl. As I said, I didn't think you'd be able to view things from outside your fishbowl.
It's not my opinion. It's a reality that you can't accept.
This is not a matter of opinion, J. If you're so convinced that a right to exist is a reality, show us where it's been a reality. Show us where a nation saved itself from conquest or destruction by asserting a "right to exist". That will be where the rubber meets the road.
You are equating enforcement of a right existence of a right. They are two separate things. The inability to enforce a right does not disprove exist of a right -- as much as totalitarian-autocratic regimes and ideologues try.
They are separate, but, since there is no right to enforce, that is where philosophy kicks in. The only thing that matters is if you can successfully defend your nation through military means. If you can't, no philosophical "right" wil save your azz.
As I tried to point out, Thomas Jeffereson and the framers of the US constitution believed certain truths to be self-evident, including a government's attempt to secure these self-evident truths for its citizens ("...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...").
That has nothing at all to do with a "right to exist" as a nation. I think you're not talking about what you think you're talking about.
Now, you may not agree with that -- and it is your self-evident right to hold whatever opinions you want -- but others disagree with you.
This is not a matter for opinion. It's like saying, in my opinion, if you breathe in water, you won't drown. A right to exist is demonstrable. So, are you going to show us where a nation saved itself from conquest or destruction by asserting a "right to exist", or not? If you can't, I've already explained why you can't.
The notion is not a legal one, only a philosophical one bandied about by political scientists and pro-Israel fanatics (no disrespect intended).
And pro-Muslim fanatics (no disrespect intended).
What has this got to do with Muslims? Nothing.
Oh, did I say Muslims? I meant Martians... who believe in Allah/Quran, like those who framed the Hamas Charter.
Still has not a thing to do with religion. You are out of your league re this issue.
Disclaimer: The opinions of this member are not primarily informed by western ethnocentric paradigms, stereotypes rooted in anti-Muslim/Islam hysteria, "Israel can do no wrong" intransigence, or the perceived need to protect the Judeo-Christian world from invading foreign religions and legal concepts. By expressing such views, no inherent attempt is being made to derail or hijack threads, but that may be the result. The result is not the responsibility of this member.
They are separate, but, since there is no right to enforce, that is where philosophy kicks in. The only thing that matters is if you can successfully defend your nation through military means. If you can't, no philosophical "right" wil save your azz.
That pretty much summarizes the history of Islam (granted, not only the history of Islam), and explains the current state of the Arabic and Islamic Middle East. So I'm not surprised it's your opinion.
As I tried to point out, Thomas Jeffereson and the framers of the US constitution believed certain truths to be self-evident, including a government's attempt to secure these self-evident truths for its citizens ("...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...").
That has nothing at all to do with a "right to exist" as a nation. I think you're not talking about what you think you're talking about.
If you're' interested in explaining your opinion, other than because so sayeth Miraj, feel free to do so.
Now, you may not agree with that -- and it is your self-evident right to hold whatever opinions you want -- but others disagree with you.
This is not a matter for opinion. It's like saying, in my opinion, if you breathe in water, you won't drown. A right to exist is demonstrable. So, are you going to show us where a nation saved itself from conquest or destruction by asserting a "right to exist", or not? If you can't, I've already explained why you can't.
The notion is not a legal one, only a philosophical one bandied about by political scientists and pro-Israel fanatics (no disrespect intended).
And pro-Muslim fanatics (no disrespect intended).
What has this got to do with Muslims? Nothing.
Oh, did I say Muslims? I meant Martians... who believe in Allah/Quran, like those who framed the Hamas Charter.
Still has not a thing to do with religion. You are out of your league re this issue.
It's a shame someone as intelligent as you can't distinguish between fact and opinion. The fact that you state something doesn't make it reality. Unless you are God. Which you seem to think you are, given the tone of your declarations (evident not only on this thread) and your demand that people agree with what you say merely because you say it.
In any event, once more, thanks for your opinions.
They are separate, but, since there is no right to enforce, that is where philosophy kicks in. The only thing that matters is if you can successfully defend your nation through military means. If you can't, no philosophical "right" wil save your azz.
That pretty much summarizes the history of Islam (granted, not only the history of Islam), and explains the current state of the Arabic and Islamic Middle East. So I'm not surprised it's your opinion.
That sums up the history of the world, period. Ken would agree with me re military might. Negotiators have only so much power to cease and desist on a global scale.
As I tried to point out, Thomas Jeffereson and the framers of the US constitution believed certain truths to be self-evident, including a government's attempt to secure these self-evident truths for its citizens ("...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...").
That has nothing at all to do with a "right to exist" as a nation. I think you're not talking about what you think you're talking about.
If you're' interested in explaining your opinion, other than because so sayeth Miraj, feel free to do so.
I'd like to know what you're talking about because it seems to morph as we go along.
Now, you may not agree with that -- and it is your self-evident right to hold whatever opinions you want -- but others disagree with you.
This is not a matter for opinion. It's like saying, in my opinion, if you breathe in water, you won't drown. A right to exist is demonstrable. So, are you going to show us where a nation saved itself from conquest or destruction by asserting a "right to exist", or not? If you can't, I've already explained why you can't.
The notion is not a legal one, only a philosophical one bandied about by political scientists and pro-Israel fanatics (no disrespect intended).
And pro-Muslim fanatics (no disrespect intended).
What has this got to do with Muslims? Nothing.
Oh, did I say Muslims? I meant Martians... who believe in Allah/Quran, like those who framed the Hamas Charter.
Still has not a thing to do with religion. You are out of your league re this issue.
It's a shame someone as intelligent as you can't distinguish between fact and opinion. The fact that you state something doesn't make it reality. Unless you are God. Which you seem to think you are, given the tone of your declarations (evident not only on this thread) and your demand that people agree with what you say merely because you say it.
In any event, once more, thanks for your opinions.
It's a shame that you believe that your opinion is fact and that if you repeat it often enough, it will become reality. Works for me though, because, as long as you're depending on a broken stick to save Israel from the one state solution, it's a lock for my side.
Disclaimer: The opinions of this member are not primarily informed by western ethnocentric paradigms, stereotypes rooted in anti-Muslim/Islam hysteria, "Israel can do no wrong" intransigence, or the perceived need to protect the Judeo-Christian world from invading foreign religions and legal concepts. By expressing such views, no inherent attempt is being made to derail or hijack threads, but that may be the result. The result is not the responsibility of this member.
For My Mother: In Praise of a Life Lived
Chasing an Elusive God
Why Christianity Is Dying But Spirituality Is Thriving?
On the Frontlines
Ray Liotta, Seth Green Join an All-Star Cast in Indie Film ‘The Identical’
A Life of Hope
Habits for a Heart Healthy Lifestyle
Emotional Equations
Are You a Compulsive or Binge Eater?
Faith, Freedom and Rocker John Schlitt
Robert Griffin III: Not the Average Rookie
Green Powders to Add to Your Diet Now
Natural Deodorants That Actually Work
Birth of a Habit
Madly In Love With ME
Is It Love If You're All Cranky When You Give It?
Living A Meaningful Life
"The Bible" a Labor of Love for Famed Producer, Wife
Who Should Be Allowed to Pray for President Obama?
