Does Israel have the right to exist?

[CPT馬冠宇]

(I knew you would.)

Well only because it counters your point. My core point is freedom, liberty, and independence

notice how the question was about a state and you turned it into a question about an ethnicity. those aren't the same thing and that's doing a lot of work in your post.

Faction states are the most legitimate states IMO. you born here so you work for us is just sheparding

this specific implementation is a failed state propped up by external subsidy rather than actual legitimacy.
View attachment 15314

I never said Israel is our responsibility but like I said Faction states are the most legitimate states IMO. Legitimacy is according to who you ask right? Thats just your opinion man. They been there for over 50 Years. Thats pretty legit imo

 

[Schwarzwald]

Well only because it counters your point. My core point is freedom, liberty, and independence

Faction states are the most legitimate states IMO. you born here so you work for us is just sheparding


I never said Israel is our responsibility but like I said Faction states are the most legitimate states IMO. Legitimacy is according to who you ask right? Thats just your opinion man. They been there for over 50 Years. Thats pretty legit imo

You say your core point is "freedom, liberty, and independence," but those words have to apply to everyone for them to be principles.

Right now, you’re using them as a shield for a state that denies those exact things to millions of people living under its control.

Also, you can’t claim independence as a value while defending a state that is geopolitically tethered to a US life support machine. Real independence is Taiwan making the world's chips so they can't be ignored, it's not having your patron veto your war crimes every Tuesday. You’re not describing independence; you’re describing subsidized impunity.

 

[CPT馬冠宇]

a state that denies those exact things to millions of people living under its control.

The people Muslims believe they have authority over the whole world. Elections have consequences when they voted for Hamas. They should have the whole Islamic world offering them refuge but only white cucks like them.

you can’t claim independence as a value while defending a state that is geopolitically tethered to a US life support machine.

Why not? I dont mind if US cuts dependency. Lots of israelis aspire for this to happen. Im litterally doing this.

you’re describing subsidized impunity.

And? If we think the ends justify the means and our veto is accepted by the world order then its legitimate.

Its literally in the law

Calling it impunity sounds like an exaggeration. Like they can do anything. We only know what has been deemed acceptable by us so far.

I dont care about 1 state israel. If palestinians want to chant river to the sea then I see them as a people desperately trying to find out

 

[Schwarzwald]

The people Muslims believe they have authority over the whole world. Elections have consequences when they voted for Hamas. They should have the whole Islamic world offering them refuge but only white cucks like them.


Why not? I dont mind if US cuts dependency. Lots of israelis aspire for this to happen. Im litterally doing this.




And? If we think the ends justify the means and our veto is accepted by the world order then its legitimate.

Its literally in the law

Calling it impunity sounds like an exaggeration. Like they can do anything. We only know what has been deemed acceptable by us so far.

I dont care about 1 state israel. If palestinians want to chant river to the sea then I see them as a people desperately trying to find out

>“freedom, liberty, independence”

>“ends justify the means” and “we decide what’s acceptable”

You started with “freedom, liberty, and independence,” but now you’re arguing that “ends justify the means” and that whatever power allows is legitimate.

Those two positions don’t coexist.

If freedom and liberty are real principles, they have to apply universally, including to people you don’t like. Otherwise they’re not principles, they’re just branding for power.

The “they voted for Hamas” argument doesn’t hold up either. Not everyone voted, not everyone supports them, and children certainly didn’t. So you’re either defending collective punishment, or you’re applying a standard you wouldn’t accept anywhere else.

And when you say something is legitimate because it’s backed by veto power, that’s not legitimacy, that’s enforcement. By that logic, any state with enough power is automatically justified, which makes the concept of “rights” meaningless.

So which is it?

Do you actually believe in freedom and liberty as principles, or do you believe power determines what’s acceptable? Because right now you’re switching between the two depending on what’s convenient.

 

[Schwarzwald]

 

[CPT馬冠宇]

Those two positions don’t coexist.

You keep playing Arbiter of reality. Just because they dont fit with you does not mean they dont exist.

American independence is literally a story of ends justify the means.

The “they voted for Hamas” argument doesn’t hold up either.

This isnt a robbery so ofcourse this isnt a hold up

Not everyone voted, not everyone supports them, and children certainly didn’t. So you’re either defending collective punishment, or you’re applying a standard you wouldn’t accept anywhere else.

Um? are you reading my mind? No, I didnt just randomly think like this. I deliberately came to this conclusion. Sometimes the world is not ideal. Hamas was raising their kids to be terrorists for a long time. I even featured it in a film i made. If your regime is raising you for war from the crib then you are a soldier from the crib.

I have trouble imagining where i wouldn't find it acceptable and still havent thought of it. Reality can be grim. So you think its ok for Hamas to genocide? Israel is the most free people in that part of the world.

legitimate because it’s backed by veto power, that’s not legitimacy, that’s enforcement. By that logic, any state with enough power is automatically justified, which makes the concept of “rights” meaningless.

Im just saying that because its a form of legitimacy that exists in our shared reality. We dont value either opinion on legitimacy so I default to veto power.

Do you actually believe in freedom and liberty as principles, or do you believe power determines what’s acceptable?

Its literally both. Might made right for american freedom. A faction state that embraces freedom is even more to be fought for.

 

[Konrad Cruze]

According to a book Jewish Fundamentalism, written by 2 Isreali professor, Jews see themselves creation of Holy matter meanwhile the Gentiles are the creation of Unholy matter. Due to which they see no value in Gentiles' opinion and see their enlightenment with disgust. They see no moral consequence of raping, murdering , lying, and stealing from the Gentiles. Giving these people their own nation is troublesome. Jews through their lobbies pushed USA to deport Jewish pedophile to Israel instead of punishing them. Once they are in Israel they go unpunished because hurting any Gentile child is ethical to them.

 

[CPT馬冠宇]

Never speak ill of the big yahu

Bish now know how dat Yoohoo do
Florida aint playin

 

[Schwarzwald]

You keep playing Arbiter of reality. Just because they dont fit with you does not mean they dont exist.

American independence is literally a story of ends justify the means.


This isnt a robbery so ofcourse this isnt a hold up

Um? are you reading my mind? No, I didnt just randomly think like this. I deliberately came to this conclusion. Sometimes the world is not ideal. Hamas was raising their kids to be terrorists for a long time. I even featured it in a film i made. If your regime is raising you for war from the crib then you are a soldier from the crib.

I have trouble imagining where i wouldn't find it acceptable and still havent thought of it. Reality can be grim. So you think its ok for Hamas to genocide? Israel is the most free people in that part of the world.



Im just saying that because its a form of legitimacy that exists in our shared reality. We dont value either opinion on legitimacy so I default to veto power.


Its literally both. Might made right for american freedom. A faction state that embraces freedom is even more to be fought for.

You’re not really engaging the same question each reply, you keep reframing it into something adjacent that’s easier to defend. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

[CPT馬冠宇]

You’re not really engaging the same question each reply, you keep reframing it into something adjacent that’s easier to defend. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

View attachment 15323

What is a same question to engage? You think im goalpost shifting?

 

[Schwarzwald]

Your replies answered: Jewish self determination, Holocaust history, Hamas governance, American independence, Muslim geopolitics, and veto power as legitimacy.

None of those are the question. I'm not saying you're doing it maliciously, but each reply engaged something adjacent rather than the core claim, that a state requiring indefinite external subsidy to maintain basic sovereignty doesn't meet the threshold for "right to exist" as a meaningful independent entity.

 

[CPT馬冠宇]

state requiring indefinite external subsidy

Oh if by saying Israel is not our responsibility Israel is not our responsibility means Israel does not have a right to exist.
I havent looked at the numbers on if they can survive without us and for how long. It may be tantamount to fact all things considered and how fast they will be vaporized. I really dont know enough about all that

 

[Schwarzwald]

Oh if by saying Israel is not our responsibility Israel is not our responsibility means Israel does not have a right to exist.
I havent looked at the numbers on if they can survive without us and for how long. It may be tantamount to fact all things considered and how fast they will be vaporized. I really dont know enough about all that

 

[wait whattt? :o]

What would have been better madagascar?

I don't think Israel should have existed at all in the first place, in my opinion. The Europeans fucked over the Jews countless times and then decided to throw the problem at the Middle East to clean their hands off it (I think, at some point, Churchill declares the problem unsolvable and walks away like the pussy he is). America then took it up to themselves to hoist up Israel as a means of furthering American Imperialism. Simply put, Israel is an extension of America disguised as an ethnostate (or at least this was America's intention up until the Epstein thing).

So no, Madagascar would not work. Israel is built on Zionism, the idea that there should be a Jewish ethnostate where the Jews could "retreat" to in order to be safe. It's built upon the idea that everybody hates the Jews and the Jews are only safe within the confines of their own Jewish ethnostate. Therefore, for an ethnostate to be established on a piece of land that is already occupied by a group of people (take Madagascar, for example), ethnic cleansing and genocide of some kind must take place so that it is successful. Otherwise, it is not an ethnostate, or at least it is an incomplete one.

I would oppose the establishment of Israel as a Jewish ethnostate on Madagascan land as much as I oppose the establishment of Israel as a Jewish ethnostate on Palestinian land.

 

[CPT馬冠宇]

I don't think Israel should have existed at all in the first place, in my opinion. The Europeans fucked over the Jews countless times and then decided to throw the problem at the Middle East to clean their hands off it (I think, at some point, Churchill declares the problem unsolvable and walks away like the pussy he is). America then took it up to themselves to hoist up Israel as a means of furthering American Imperialism. Simply put, Israel is an extension of America disguised as an ethnostate (or at least this was America's intention up until the Epstein thing).

So no, Madagascar would not work. Israel is built on Zionism, the idea that there should be a Jewish ethnostate where the Jews could "retreat" to in order to be safe. It's built upon the idea that everybody hates the Jews and the Jews are only safe within the confines of their own Jewish ethnostate. Therefore, for an ethnostate to be established on a piece of land that is already occupied by a group of people (take Madagascar, for example), ethnic cleansing and genocide of some kind must take place so that it is successful. Otherwise, it is not an ethnostate, or at least it is an incomplete one.

I would oppose the establishment of Israel as a Jewish ethnostate on Madagascan land as much as I oppose the establishment of Israel as a Jewish ethnostate on Palestinian land.

Malagasi are more manageable than middle eastern Muslims I suspect. Alot of them regret pushing out the white people. Some people are more cooperative than others.

 

[wait whattt? :o]

Malagasi are more manageable than middle eastern Muslims I suspect. Alot of them regret pushing out the white people. Some people are more cooperative than others.

So what? What are you trying to imply by saying they are more cooperative than others? What will they agree to? To give a piece of their land? Or join the ethnostate as second-class citizens to preserve ethnic primacy? (since, if they join the ethnostate of Israel as equals to the Jews then it is no longer an ethnostate in a meaningful sense at all)

 

[CPT馬冠宇]

So what? What are you trying to imply by saying they are more cooperative than others? What will they agree to? To give a piece of their land? Or join the ethnostate as second-class citizens to preserve ethnic primacy? (since, if they join the ethnostate of Israel as equals to the Jews then it is no longer an ethnostate in a meaningful sense at all)

saying that I believe they would cooperate with each other more and israel would feel less threatened by the Malagasi. Malagasi likely second class citizens or an acceptable two state solution. They could just do it South africa style where there is no literal oppression. Just settle unsettled area it would work out because it has US support for sure.

Reminds me that We should have supported Rhodesia or SA instead of israel. Wtf why we choose the worst one?

 

[wait whattt? :o]

saying that I believe they would cooperate with each other more and israel would feel less threatened by the Malagasi. Malagasi likely second class citizens or an acceptable two state solution. They could just do it South africa style where there is no literal oppression. Just settle unsettled area it would work out because it has US support for sure.

Reminds me that We should have supported Rhodesia or SA instead of israel. Wtf why we choose the worst one?

I said earlier. The US chose to support Israel because it furthered American Imperialism and control in the Middle East.

Also, you assume that the Malagasi would likely accept to be second-class citizens (which is baffling that you find this likely) or surrender a piece of their land. So I have two questions:
1. What makes you think that the Malagasi people would willfully subject themselves to be second-class citizens under an ethnostate OR surrender a piece of their land to the Jews so they can establish their own ethnostate?
2. In the case they do not accept either (that is, they choose not to become second-class citizens NOR surrender a piece of their land), what should follow?

 

[CPT馬冠宇]

to be second-class citizens

Oh noes I was born poor not the child of a billionair that means im a second class citizen! Now im forced to be a terrorist now,

You listen to too many palestinian and commies I think. Yeah palestinians had some hard times but its because they spooking the israelis and stuff. Malagasi miss the colonists

1. because they would have a better life than they would otherwise and they miss colonialism.
2. What? Im supposed to say what should or shouldent happen? Im not enough of an african hand to say if it would be better than palestine but I think it would be better. Magagasi have the lowest tech and econemy in the world basically and especially in the 40s

I know everyones so envious in the incelsphere but there are people out there that are not constantly envious..

 

[Sovereign]

This is one of, if not the most, dumbest questions to ever exist on Earth. So so stupid

If they are not legitimate amongst their people, then no Otherwise.

 

[wait whattt? :o]

Oh noes I was born poor not the child of a billionair that means im a second class citizen! Now im forced to be a terrorist now,

You listen to too many palestinian and commies I think. Yeah palestinians had some hard times but its because they spooking the israelis and stuff. Malagasi miss the colonists

It seems you don't understand the point that I am trying to make here.

Let me try to explain this more clearly. An ethnocracy is essentially:

An ethnocracy is a type of political structure featuring "rule by a particular ethnos in a multi-ethnic situation". Ethnocracies may involve a state apparatus controlled by a dominant ethnic group (or groups) to further that group's perceived interests, power, dominance, and resources. Ethnocratic régimes in the modern era typically display a 'thin' democratic façade covering a more profound ethnic structure, in which ethnicity (race, religion, language, etc.) — and not citizenship — is the key to securing power and resources.

Source: Ethnocracy - Wikipedia

An ethnostate, like Israel, which is structurally an ethnocracy, would purport that the ruling ethnicity must have dominance legally, resourcefully, and demographically over the ethnic minority. I am not saying they would be "second-class citizens" in the sense they are poor and not children of billionaires as your retarded framing suggests, I mean they would have to literally be second-class citizens legally and structurally for ethnical primacy to be preserved. Otherwise, as I said, it would not be an ethnocracy nor an ethnostate in a meaningful sense. It is either this OR they have to surrender a piece of their land.

Also, engage with what I am actually saying rather than making assumptions about who I am or making retarded framing that I didn't even suggest. You are an admin ffs, don't lower your dignity by coming off like a retard.

1. because they would have a better life than they would otherwise and they miss colonialism.
2. What? Im supposed to say what should or shouldent happen? Im not enough of an african hand to say if it would be better than palestine but I think it would be better. Magagasi have the lowest tech and econemy in the world basically and especially in the 40s

You keep saying the Malagasy love colonialism, that they would have better life, and that they would happily subject themselves under ethnocratic rule where they are the ethnic minority OR that they would surrender a piece of their land.
I will ask you yet again and I hope you give actually substantiated reasons for why you think that is the case.
Why do you believe the Malagasy would willfully subject themselves under ethnocratic rule as an ethnic minority?
Why do you believe the Malagasy would willfully surrender a piece of their land for the establishment of a Jewish ethnostate?

 

[wait whattt? :o]

If they are not legitimate amongst their people, then no Otherwise.

I will be honest, I am unsure what you are saying here

 

[CPT馬冠宇]

like a retard.

OK you fucking asshole. You are lucky the retards didnt hear that or they would be offended! Im not going to let you hurt them anymore, you hear me mr!

willfully subject themselves under ethnocratic rule as an ethnic minority?

You getting too absorbed in wikicucks but all that is present in Israel and not thinking that would take place in the Malagaisi version might be wishfull thinking but I think even if they formed an ethno state it would not be as oppressive as Israel and may not fullfill all hallmarks of ethnostate.

Why do you believe the Malagasy would willfully surrender a piece of their land for the establishment of a Jewish ethnostate?

 

[wait whattt? :o]

OK you fucking asshole. You are lucky the retards didnt hear that or they would be offended! Im not going to let you hurt them anymore, you hear me mr!

You are right, I should stop lest I incur their wrath!!! >.<

You getting too absorbed in wikicucks but all that is present in Israel and not thinking that would take place in the Malagaisi version might be wishfull thinking but I think even if they formed an ethno state it would not be as oppressive as Israel and may not fullfill all hallmarks of ethnostate.

Idk man, I think I am making fair points here. Israel, even in the Malagasy version, would most likely be ethnocratic in its rule. Mind you, Madagascar has a smaller Jewish group than Palestinian land, and Palestinian land has holy sites significant to Judaism.

Also, the Malagasy expressing their regret over pushing away white people does not necessarily mean they want to surrender land for a Jewish ethnostate.

Anyway, I am bored of this discussion now XD