Anti Semitism to increase after the government sides with Islamists

Does it have recognised boundaries or an effective ruling authority that exercises administrative and political control over the population and territory?

The Gaza strip are ruled by Hamas. Would you say they are an effective ruling authority?

@RedTagAlan ,

You can’t separate the religion and the location, as you would like to in your thought experiment.

For religious Jews, the religion is intimately connected to the land. A Jewish toast is next year in Jerusalem. Jewish schooling (even reform) centres around how Israel is interwoven with Judaism, including the fleeing from Egypt etc.

Also, though, Nebraska is a poor example. What about if the Jewish state had been formed between Kenya and Tanzania (as was mooted at one point). I imagine the tribes from that area who would have been pushed out would be pretty unhappy about it, especially if that area had become very wealthy.

And the same dilemmas would exist as do in Israel.

@RedTagAlan ,

You can’t separate the religion and the location, as you would like to in your thought experiment.

For religious Jews, the religion is intimately connected to the land. A Jewish toast is next year in Jerusalem. Jewish schooling (even reform) centres around how Israel is interwoven with Judaism, including the fleeing from Egypt etc.

Also, though, Nebraska is a poor example. What about if the Jewish state had been formed between Kenya and Tanzania (as was mooted at one point). I imagine the tribes from that area who would have been pushed out would be pretty unhappy about it, especially if that area had become very wealthy.

And the same dilemmas would exist as do in Israel.

Israel doesn't have internationally defined borders with all its neighbors.

And the capital and army aren't part of the 4 criteria for being a state under the Montevideo Convention.

Eh? With what army?

It's not a proper member of the UN, fact. It has no internationally agreed boundaries, no capital and no army... It's not a proper state yet, fact.

Countries who recognise it as a state are doing so in a symbolic sense because they want it to be a proper state one day. When it is we will all know about it.

The people have the right to defend their countries borders. The idea that a country has a right is ridiculous.

So technically are you saying because it has no boundaries it could attack the entire world?

It's not a proper member of the UN, fact. It has no internationally agreed boundaries, no capital and no army... It's not a proper state yet, fact.

Countries who recognise it as a state are doing so in a symbolic sense because they want it to be a proper state one day. When it is we will all know about it.

No the UN recognizes it as a "non-member observer state" (mainly due to the US vetoing it at the UN Security Council)

It's agreed capital is Jerusalem but it's administrative capital is Ramallah.

And the reason its borders are not agreed is because it's pesky neighbour keeps moving them .

I think it means that recognised countries have a right to defend their borders and to sovereignty within their boundaries.

It is of course also possible to change a country's borders through agreement e.g. America bought Alaska, there is a mechanism for Northern Ireland to leave the UK; so borders are not set in stone.

Even the UN don't recognise it as a full member state. It has no internationally agreed boundaries, no capital and no army.

Calling it a state is symbolic only. It could become a real state one day, but not while Hamas are there.

It's a thought experiment. And in a way, it matters.

Because we can expand on the thought experiment. Lets say Britain had kept Palestine. And it was still under UK control. And the UK had done all those wars. And lets say the Jewish folk had been given another area. Nebraska for example.

It might seem daft and all "what ifs", but it matters because is there some sort of theological anti Jewish thing going on, or is it mostly to do with the location ?

And this is sort of made clear with why Iran objects to Israel. Because it is a secular state, that they call a US puppet, in the middle east. With a city considered holy. It is secularism in what they consider their area that the Iranian clerics seem to object to.

I think the thought experiment helps to remove possible conflation.

I'll engage so in this but why not?

Is it because it is an illegally occupied territory or what is the reason.

This debate often goes in circles because of how the phrase is used, but from a perspective of international law, countries themselves do not have an inherent right to exist, they either exist or they do not. Israel is a universally recognized country that exists. Rights belong to people, not to state structures or lines on a map. For example, Czechoslovakia was a recognized country that existed for decades. It no longer exists today, but the people who lived there still exist on the same land, safely and with full human rights, within two new countries, Czechia and Slovakia. From the perspective of Israel, it is the people, both Israelis and Palestinians, who have an absolute, unconditional right to exist, to have safety, and to live in dignity.

Questioning whether Crimea should be Russian is not the same as saying the whole of Russia shouldn’t exist.

God forbid anyone links those not wanting the one Jewish state in the world to exist with antisemitism.

Nothing to see here...

Thank you @StopMeStopMeStopMe .
Yes it was cross purposes and being deliberately muddies.. And of all the marches I have been on the focus has never been on Israel as a state but instead their current actions of state extinction. I am sure there are those who agree with Hamas and Hezbollah but just like the extremists within the Pro Israel movement who believe all Palestinian children should be slaughtered their voices thankfully are not the majority and can be ignored.

And yes it is state extinction what Israel are doing because the country I am in recognizes Palestine as a state. Because if other posters think that a requirement is for all countries to recognize a state for it to exist as I think they implied then it does muddy the argument quite a lot about Israel.

Just because the country you are in "recognises Palestine as a state" that does not make Palestine - in actual fact - a state.

It isn't a state at the moment. Fact.

I'm not implying Palestine can never become a state. Just being factual that you can't have state extinction before the state exists.

To me it's what is implied by "There has to be an existing state for the possibility of state extinction".

However, I accept that I might have misunderstood, hence the request for clarification.

I find it's easier to understand what people mean if I ask them.

Just to clarify your position, are you arguing that Palestine should never be able to achieve statehood under any circumstances?

Thank you @StopMeStopMeStopMe .
Yes it was cross purposes and being deliberately muddies.. And of all the marches I have been on the focus has never been on Israel as a state but instead their current actions of state extinction. I am sure there are those who agree with Hamas and Hezbollah but just like the extremists within the Pro Israel movement who believe all Palestinian children should be slaughtered their voices thankfully are not the majority and can be ignored.

And yes it is state extinction what Israel are doing because the country I am in recognizes Palestine as a state. Because if other posters think that a requirement is for all countries to recognize a state for it to exist as I think they implied then it does muddy the argument quite a lot about Israel.