No nation has the right to exist.
Rights are things given by nations anyway, so applying rights to nations is laughable.
Rights aran’t “given”, that’s why they’re called “rights”
Yes, but I was referring to the concept of rights within a social contract, no matter how incorrect that is.
I think my point needs to be put in context.
Fair enough, though I didn’t find that clear in context. And even within a social contract, natural rights still exist.
My bad on cutting out all the proceeding text though. I thought I was doing it as a link so people could go see the full thread, but tumblr screwed me again.
Both of you are wrong, in different ways. Rights don’t exist, and therefore Israel is just as legitimate as any individual in claiming they have a right to something.
akagoldfish: Rights aren’t “given”, but they don’t just exist. They’re demanded and taken. They’re an expression of power secured in balance. As long as the government sufficiently fears their own people or international pressure, rights are respected. As long as the individuals sufficiently fear their government, rights are respected (if you take a Hobbesian view of human nature). They exist only in so much as they’re demanded and fought for.
The idea of natural rights and legal rights as being separate is a false dichotomy. Natural rights are uncodified social mores that people are normalised into expecting to have respected, legal rights are codified social mores that people are normalised into expecting to have respected. Neither of which exist intrinsically and both of which are predicated on the assumption that in the instances where they’re broken an expression of force will be demonstrated to reclaim them. The only thing that separates them is a bit of paper to expressly state what one entails, both purely exist through social contract and the threat or reality of force.
spacebaw: rights for the individual therefore exist for the group or nation in exactly the same way. Israel has the right to exist in so much that it claims it does and is willing and able to fight to prove as much. Israel isn’t a nation though, it’s a nation-state. Individuals rights are demanded of other individuals and of the state, the rights of a nation-state are therefore demanded of other nation-states and of organisations of nation-states (such as the U.N.). The rationalisation and effective function is the same but it’s simply the scale that differs.
Throwing this one out there a little more: nations, like rights, don’t intrinsically exist but are social constructs. The argument for Israel existing as a jewish state (that is to say to define the Israeli nationality on ethnic/religious lines) is akin to any other movement which defines nationality on stringent ethnic or religious lines and is racist and illegitimate for exactly the same reasons those other movements are. That is where Israel’s legitimacy fails, not in some rabbit hole arguing about whether or not states can have rights.