pull down to refresh

States do not have rights. States, after all, are just organizations with a monopoly on the means of coercion within a certain territory. They are not natural, and certainly do not enjoy any natural rights. At their best, states can be used to protect the rights of the people who live within their borders. States are usually not at their best, however. Usually, state powers are employed to violate the rights of the people unfortunate enough to live under the power of state operatives. These victims of the state include both the state’s residents as well as innocent victims living in other, weaker states.
A common phrase used by Israeli propagandists, however, is the phrase “Israel has a right to exist.” This is phrased vaguely on purpose. What is meant is this: “The State of Israel has a right to exit.” And, of course, it does not have a right to exist, just like the corporation known as “The United States government” does not have a right to exist.
Do the people known as Israelis have a right to exist? Of course they do, just as the people known as Palestinians have a right to exist. That, however, is a separate question.
This question, by the way, is often accompanied by a second propaganda statement: “Israel has a right to defend itself.” This statement is virtually always accompanied by an explanation of why the State of Israel is not bound by any international laws of warfare ,or by any moral provisions of Just War Theory. “Israel has a right to defend itself,” as generally used, is code for “Israel can do whatever it wants in war.”
Just war theory, shmusht war theory, is no theory and no factor in the aggression by the State of Israel and the Israeli people to others in the region. They can say what they wish but they have no rights to extinguish a people or take territory any more than Trump has, unless they buy it in a mutually agreed upon sale. I just wonder how the world will take this unbridled aggression on Israel’s neighbors and how the rest of the countries and people in the world will react to this.
Sovereigns exist at the sufferance of other sovereigns.
reply
Only if all of those sovereigns are truly sovereign. If they are not truly sovereign, then they are only vassels.
reply
146 sats \ 1 reply \ @Arceris 20 Jan
Of course. Vassels, citizens, and serfs all exist at the pleasure of a sovereign.
But other sovereigns exist at the sufferance of other sovereigns.
Meaning that two sovereigns only exist to the extent that there is no reason or ability for one to subsume the other.
At this point, it is potentially reasonable to say that the only true sovereigns on Earth are the nuclear armed nations, as they are the only ones that potentially can absolutely resist the other nuclear sovereigns (through MAD).
If you’re not armed with nuclear weapons, then you only exist at the pleasure of one or more nuclear sovereigns, so you’re merely a vessel.
Ukraine, for instance, is only really able to resist Russia because Russia cannot bring nuclear might to bear, since different nuclear sovereigns would be annoyed. So, practically, Ukraine only now exists at the pleasure of the USA.
reply
I don’t disagree. The vassals are the vassals and must dance.to the tune of their sovereign. This is why Israel is nuclear and why Iran is moving that way.
reply