Talk:Right to exist

Failed AFD

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Right to exist (2nd nomination). Johnleemk | Talk 10:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Palestine's Right to Exist

Why are references to Palestine's right to exist routinely deleted? An independent Palestinian State has a legal right to exist under Resolution 181 of the United Nations of 29 November 1947. This state does not currently exist. It is estimated that 5,000,000 of the 9,395,000 to 11 million Palestinian Arabs are currently Stateless people.[7][8] The Peel Commission recommended the establishment of an Arab state cooexistent with a Jewish state within the borders of the British Mandate for Palestine. In 1947 UNSCOP concluded (a) Although sharply divided by political issues, the peoples of Palestine are sufficiently advanced to govern themselves independently.

(b) The Arab and Jewish peoples, after more than a quarter of a century of tutelage under the Mandate, both seek a means of effective expression for their national aspirations.

(c) It is highly unlikely that any arrangement which would fail to envisage independence at a reasonably early date would find the slightest welcome among either Arabs or Jews.

UN General Assembly Resolution 181 states "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"[9] 93.96.148.42 (talk) 09:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Arguments in favour or against Israel

This article is about the phrase "Right to exist" and its use in Israeli political discourse and not a critique of Zionism, so anything discussing the question whether Israel should exist should not be here. Pilatus 10:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, so you say the article is about the term "right to exist", and not whether or not Israel should exist,ie, the article is only concerned with the term itself, right?

So,then, what's been put here so far is presumably an explication of the term, what someone in favor of the term thinks it means, and why it should be used (and not an argument for or against Israel).

With that in mind, I think it would be in the spirit of the article if I added a Chomsky quote that criticized the term itself and why some believe it ought not to be used, but which would not be a criticism of Israel itself, anymore than the original segement is an apology for Israel. So I'm going to go ahead and add that quote, unless there's a compelling reason why I shouldn't.--Filippo Argenti 17:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The quote was improperly cited. I changed the quote to reflect the citation, but the original quote that was improperly cited can be found at http://www.countercurrents.org/chomsky021003.htm Macfanatic (talk) 00:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

The language in this article doesn't seem completely npov. Specifically, I'm refering to "the other expression forming a mask for Anti-Semitism, a disdain to see any form of progress by those of Jewish origin." Is this even true? There's no citation, and this statement is asserting a pretty bold motivation on people. I'm not entirely sure if this is correct, this certainly doesn't appear to be the proper presentation of these ideas.

Also "Right to Exist" is a pretty generic term. This article should be renamed "Israel's Right to Exist." I have would argue that pretty much every nation has a right to exist, but this article doesn't refer to any other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.146.221 (talk) 06:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I've editted it. I was simply referring to 'raw' anti-semitism and general hatred of Jews, some are motivated by that in this topic, although a small minority in my experience.

Right to Exist: Ask ten people who are politically aware what this refers to, 10 of them will say Israel. Yes it's general but in reality, specific. Not the best terminology, but just one of those things, it is because it is. LegendaryHammy (talk) 15:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Please review WP:NOR and WP:V. You can't just fill an article with your own arguments and thoughts on a topic. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Disgraceful ignorance

The ignorance displayed on this page is emblematic of the reasonswhy Wikipedia is mocked. It is written as though this phrase originated with Israel or in Israel and is used exclusively about Israel. I am attempting toput in a little reality, with an explanation of the origins of the phrase in International Law.AMelian (talk) 12:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)AMelianAMelian (talk) 12:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)AMelian

If you Google "right to exist", the top results all relate to Israel. I went through seven pages and found only one hit that wasn't Israel related. Of course, there are plenty of non-Israel hits if you go further down, but they are things like "Human resources has no right to exist". Non-Israel international law references are quite rare. To put "Abkhazia" first is to mislead the reader. The quote "every nation has the right to exist, and to protect and to conserve its existence" is hardly classic. It's from a rather obscure 1916 declaration by a group of lawyers and has no legal standing.[1] Kauffner (talk) 01:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

That is not a reason to delete everything else. Right to exist, and Palestine gets 200,000+ hits, which is a lot. The American president said "that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's." Right to exist and abkhazia gets 15,000 hits, which is a lot more than nothing. Russia has cited Abkhazia's right to exist in official communications - http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/russia/2008/russia-080826-mfa01.htm93.96.148.42 (talk) 20:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

When I seached, the tenth result for "right to exist" was "Does Palestine have the right to exist?" .93.96.148.42 (talk) 21:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• I did "right to exist" and Abkhazia and I got 5,000 hits, compared to 389,000 for "right to exist" and Israel. The Google software isn't designed to give accurate hit counts, but to put the most relevant hits on top. In this case, those hits are all relate to Israel. The current version of the article doesn't even mention Israel in the lede, only as one entry on an alphabetical list of nations. Readers are being given a misleading view of how the phrase is used. Both quotes about Abkhazia are from 2008, so this is covered by WP:RECENTISM as well.
• The material about Palestine is way off base. The phrase "right to exist" does not appear in UN General Assembly Resolution 181. Nor does this resolution use the phrase "Arab Palestinian" or refer to the proposed Arab state as "Palestinian" or "Palestine." In any case, Resolution 181 was superseded by UN Security Council Resolution 242 passed in 1967, so it no longer gives anyone the right to anything. The Peel Commission and the number of stateless Arabs has no relevance to this topic. This is a language article, so the fact that the phrase "right to exist" wasn't used with respect to Palestinian Arabs in the 1930s and 1940s is sufficient reason to cut this entry out. But arguement this entry makes is also flawed from a substantive point of view: At that time, Palestinian Arabs were not regarded as having a national identity separate from that of other Arabs.
• The "Macedonia" entry is also very misleading, since the the phrase "right to exist" does not appear in the 1934 Comintern resolution. It seems to be a phrase used by a modern author writing about the conflict. I don't see any indication that the phrase was associated with Macedonia traditionally.
• The claim, "The phrase was in widespread use in this manner in the nineteenth century, and was incorporated in the form cited above into the basic principles of the League of Nations and of the United Nations" is incorrect and not supported by the cited sources. Both sources use the phrase "right to exist" only when quoting from the 1916 American Institute of International Law resolution, which not a 19th century source, not a League of Nations source, and not a UN source. Kauffner (talk) 04:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:RECENTISM does not rule out covering recent events - read it. "At that time, Palestinian Arabs were not regarded as having a national identity separate from that of other Arabs."- how does that relate to their "right to exist", and is it true? 181 refers to "Palestinian Citizens", and "Palestinian peoples". Please give a source for "Resolution 181 was superseded by UN Security Council Resolution 242", and amend those articles accordingly. You claim that "This is a language article, so the fact that the phrase "right to exist" wasn't used with respect to Palestinian Arabs in the 1930s and 1940s is sufficient reason to cut this entry out.", which makes very little sense to me, especially given Obama's recent declaration on the Palestinian Right to Exist. I know little of Macedonia, and you may be right. "The phrase was in widespread use in this manner in the nineteenth century, and was incorporated in the form cited above into the basic principles of the League of Nations and of the United Nations" may not be supported by the sources, but it has been part of the article for a long time - are you sure it is wrong. The entry on Israel could use some explanation on the use of "right to exist" to deny the Palestinian right of return. WP:RECENTISM suggests that it is wrong to rely on post 1967 usage. For example Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf that "He who does not wish to fight in this world, where permanent struggle is the law of life, has not the right to exist." This suggests an alternative meaning that should be described in the article. Semiotics has also had a right to exist since 1966, pre-dating Israel.93.96.148.42 (talk) 08:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The League of nations charter said "Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory." This contradicts the statement that " At that time, Palestinian Arabs were not regarded as having a national identity separate from that of other Arabs."93.96.148.42 (talk) 09:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

"The phrase was in widespread use in this manner in the nineteenth century, and was incorporated in the form cited above into the basic principles of the League of Nations and of the United Nations" is wrong, I agree, as I can not find it in either text.93.96.148.42 (talk) 09:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

"At that time, Palestinian Arabs were not regarded as having a national identity separate from that of other Arabs."- how does that relate to their "right to exist", and is it true? Logically, a thing must be understood to exist before we can talk about it having a right to exist. The area intended by the UN for the "Arab State" mostly went to Jordan, and the Jordanian government didn't treat Palestinian Arabs as a separate nationality.

The bottom line is that Resolution 181, the Peel Commission and so forth don't say anything about a "right to exist", so they don't belong in this article. The little POV history of Palestine and the stateless Arabs has no relationship to the subject this article is supposed to be about. "Palestinian Citizens" means citizens of the Mandate of Palestine, both Jews and Arabs. Your quote from League of Nations charter doesn't say anything about Palestinian Arabs or a right to exist. The "certain communities" could be Iraqis, Syrians, Jordanians, Jews, etc. WP:RECENTISM talks about a "ten-year test", so I don't see any problem with focusing on post-1967 usage. An article that focused on pre-1967 usage would be mostly about Thomas Paine and Ernest Renan, whose quotes you have removed without explanation.

I much prefer a putting the citations in chronological order because this gives a sense of how usage has developed over the years. Listing alphabetically by country gives a false sense of equivalence between various the countries listed. Kauffner (talk) 11:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

"Listing alphabetically by country gives a false sense of equivalence between various the countries listed' - please explain, as I thought that all the countries listed were equivalent. Your suggestion to focus on post-1967 usage to give a sense of how usage has developed over the years I find hard to understand. I removed the references to Thomas Paine and Ernest Renan in order to recover the large sections of the article you deleted. Please restore them.. The 10 year test refers to "In ten years will this addition still appear relevant?", not things that happened 10 years ago." Your argument about Palestinian Nationhood is Israeli POV.93.96.148.42 (talk) 12:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC).

Philosophical absurdity

It's not my area, but surely there should be some grounding for this concept? It would be good to add references to John Searle, Peter Singer, Max Weber, social contract theory and even perhaps Parmenides (if something does not exist it cannot have rights; if it does it does not need a right). At the moment the article only applies to "nations", basically meaning "sovereign states". The converse of right to exist of nations could meaningfully be equated with genocide (if a nation is a holotype for an individual), but the converse of right to exist of a state seems to be mere denial of a socially constructed proposition, and there are an infinite number of those. States are pure fiction: convenient or inconvenient fiction as may be. It seems absurd to suppose that a fictional entity can have rights. In any case "The right to exist is a bedrock principle of international law referring to the right of nations to exist" needs actual quoted sources, perhaps the UN Charter, and the second part of the sentence would is a self-definition and adds nothing. --79.72.42.92 (talk) 12:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

revision 300404844 by Kauffner

This attempted to remove references to the rights of states other than Israel to exist. I have reverted it. Please explain the reasoning behind it, as it appeared destructive.93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

This version of the article has a list of problems I have enumerated above. For example, there are several paragraphs about UN Resolution 181. This resolution does not use the phrase "right to exist", nor does it recognize Palestinians Arabs as a separate nationality, nor is this resolution still in effect. Why would think you that material on this subject belongs here? You saw something about Israel, so you felt a need to write about Palestine? Kauffner (talk) 10:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

That is not a valid reason for removing all the material created by consensus that you have done three times. A lot of editiors have been involved in writing this entry. US president Obama said "Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's.http://www.maannews.net/en/index.php?opr=ShowDetails&ID=3830293.96.148.42 (talk) 03:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

talk please stop repeating your destructive edit. You have failed to explain why only Israel has the right to exist. This is a controversial topic, previous discussions here explain the current state of the article.93.96.148.42 (talk) 16:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Kauffner's edit, revision 303897115, repeats the deletion of most of the article,with the claim that it is the consensus version. Since it represents his rewriting of the article, I have reverted it to the consensus version.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Third Opinion I concur with the anonymous IP, here. I can see no good reason for deleting all mention of Abkhazia, etc. from the article, which already includes a section on criticism as to whether the term can be applied generally or not. Certainly, the main focus of the article should be on Israel and Palestine, since that is the most common usage of the term, but it is clear that it is sometimes used in other contexts, and it seems to me that those other usages deserve at least some mention. Anaxial (talk) 08:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Try Googling "right to exist". I went through seven pages of results and basically everything was Israel, Israel, Israel. As it is now, the lede mentions a whole list of countries, but not Israel. The references in the lede claiming that "right to exist" is some sort of general principle of international law are bogus, as I have already discussed above. The section about Palestine focuses on UN Resolution 181, which doesn't use the phrase. This whole section is very misleading as it implies that Israel prevented the Palestinian from obtaining the state they were entitled to under this resolution. Kauffner (talk) 13:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

It's also not hard to find references on Google to the phrase used in other contexts. For example, there are nearly 5,000 hits for its use in reference to Abkhazia "right to exist" Abkhazia, and an even greater number specifically referring to the Palestinian right to exist "Palestine's right to exist""Palestinian right to exist". As I say above, it's obvious that the main use the of the term is with reference to Israel, and that should be the focus of the article. But I can see no valid reason to exclude its use in other contexts outside the lead. However, I have stated my third opinion; it is not binding, and you are welcome to ask for a wider RfC, or pursue some other process, if you feel that would be helpful to prevent an incipient edit war here. Anaxial (talk) 13:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, you know, "Israel's right to exist" gives you over 10 million hits, vastly more than the equivalents for Palestine or anyone else. I never excluded relevant quotes referring to other countries, but listed them chronologically at the bottom. The problem is that Israel in not currently the focus of the article, or even mentioned in the lede. Kauffner (talk) 14:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be good to add an analysis of the Israeli use of "right to exist". However the term dates to the mid c19, if not earlier, and it does not belong to Israel. You say that the notion that" "right to exist" is some sort of general principle of international law are bogus" - please give references. As I understand it, Israel has the same right to exist as any other state, but feels threatened. Abkhazia is in a similar position.93.96.148.42 (talk) 23:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The earliest usage I can find is Thomas Paine (1791), but that keeps getting removed from the article. The references for the claim that RTE is from 19th century international law or from the League of Nations don't support this claim at all. Instead, they quote from a document produced by a group of lawyers in 1916.[2] The two main problems with the article as I see it are: (1) In the real world, RTE refers to Israel in the overwhelming majority of cases. There is no indication of this now, either in the lede or in the way the article is organized. (2) It's filled with little one-sided POV essays about various controversies around the world, such as Palestine and Abkhazia. Kauffner (talk) 06:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Please add useful material, such as the Thomas Paine usage, but don't delete lots of text. If you add material to the Israel section, then it could be reflected in the lede. Israel's RTE is controversial, as is Abkhazia's and Palestine's. However in the real world RTE refers to all countries, and arguably to other things, such as semiotics, as well.93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see wp:synth, which is Wikipedia's policy pertaining to using sourced content to reach a novel conclusion.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• User:Kauffner and some others need to consider both the specificity of phrasing and the bias toward the recent inherent in google. If you look in early nineteenth century sources, the debate is about the rights of the Greeks to statehood. But they may be using words like sovereignty, ofr freedom, as in Byron's wonderful poem "I dreamed that Greece might yet be free..." A specific phrase can develop later than the concept it represents. Bureauracracy is a 19th-century word, but the Byzantines were notorious for their bureaucratic red-tape, although I suspect that red-tape is a 20th-century word. Failure to use the phrase "right to exist" did not stop the seventh-century Armenians from fighting a war of national liberation against an occupying army. They lost. But the fact that the phrase "national liberation" had not yet been coined did not negate the fact that this is what they were fighting for. When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them Thomas Jefferson did not use the phrase "right to exist" either. But it is what he meant.AMuseo (talk) 18:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Make up your minds

My last post along these lines was deleted, so I'm going to make it again. At least the high points will be covered

Simply - the sections in the article pertaining to Abkhazia and Palestinian state serve to directly and and materially undermine the statement by Chomsky earlier in the article that this concept is only invoked by Israel. Decide: is Chomsky wrong (and thus presumably his statement should not be emphasized), or is the Wikipedia article (incorrectly) undercutting his statement by giving undue weight to these other countries. The Israel section is roughly comparable in size to the sections on the other countries - an uninitiated observer would therefore think that Chomsky's statement does not make sense occupying such a high place in an article that quite obviously has some serious conflicts with it. Solution: either drastically expand the section on Israel, delete these other countries' sections, or get a new quote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.116.15.110 (talk) 00:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• This is a good point. Chomsky is asserting something that almost every line of the article marks as untrue. I moved his assertion to the section about Israel because I can see that some editors think it belongs in the article. On the one hand, although it is a false assertion it is made by a notable polemicist. It certainly does not belong in the lede.AMuseo (talk) 18:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the hits for "right to exist" on Google books, the overwhelming majority relate to the Arab-Israeli conflict. As for the other hits, they do not usually refer to other nations that supposedly have the right to exist, or even to international law, but rather to entirely unrelated subjects including abortion, animal rights, and self-esteem. This page has put together some unrepresentative quotes offers a misleading view to the reader. Kauffner (talk) 06:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

@kauffner - read the posts above, especially the one about recentism. You were involved in that discussion, and are repeating what you said before.93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

This would seem to be an argument against the Chomsky quote, yet you restored it. Attacking Israel's "right to exist" was already a major theme in Arab rhetoric under Nasser in the 1950s, so Chomsky is quite wrong when he links it to the Palestinian issue claims it was invented in the 1970s. But being wrong isn't a reason to exclude the quote. Kauffner (talk) 03:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

question

How is the "right to exist" different from the right to "self-determination"? Perhaps the two articles should be merged? Opportunidaddy (talk) 20:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a technical difference in that "right to exist" implies that the state in question already exists, but "self-determination" does not. But the larger difference is that the word "self-determination" is used in the UN Charter and has a meaning interpreted by international lawyers. "Right to exist" has to do with morality. Kauffner (talk) 10:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

balanced rights

This sentence in the lead: The right to exist of a de facto state may be balanced against another state's right to territorial integrity. Could someone please show me where exactly the reference says that? Snakeswithfeet (talk) 04:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Original Research Removed From the article

I have removed the following from the article as it is original research based on historical sources, that do not contain the conclusions expressed in the passage - "The phrase "right to exist" gained prominence in the 1950s because of the vehemence with which Arab states at this time denied that Israel had such a right.*"Foreign Affairs; A Time to Find a Solution for Palestine", New York Times Aug 2, 1958. "Most Arab leaders do not even dare admit Israel's right to exist. They fear assassination by fanatics."*Parliamentary debates: Official report: Volume 547 (1956), Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons: "I will give two short quotations, one from Colonel Nasser, the Prime Minister of Egypt, on 8th May, 1954. It is an extremist point of view based on the belief and the assertion that Israel has no right to exist at all."*"Arms and the Middle East", Toledo Blade, Sep 30, 1955. "the Arabs still refuse to acknowledge Israel's right to exist."</ref> "And underlying all of the questions dividing Israel and its Arab neighbors, one issue is central: Does Israel have a right to exist?", wrote novelist James T. Farrell in 1958.Farrell, James Thomas, It has come to pass, 1958</ref>"189.233.95.90 (talk) 11:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

To explain - a Novelist's opinion, extracts from a contemporary newspaper article, and reports of parliamentary debates are primary sources. Mixing them together constitutes original research. Wikipedia should be based on respected secondary sources.93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

So if there is more than one source, it is original research? The point is just to show that the phrase was applied by the Arabs to Israel in the 1950s, since Chomsky and others have claimed that it arose as a result of the 1967 war. Kauffner (talk) 03:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Law against aggression and right to exist

If there was no right to exist then aggression would be completely legal. This would be completely self explanatory if the Jews weren't involved, and there was no appalling need to pretend that the right to exist is "not" protected under international law. 108.65.0.169 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC).

Request for comment

I invite neutral commentary on this article, particularly this section on "Pakistan", which, I believe, has been deliberately skewed by Pakistani nationalist editors, User:TopGun [3],USer:Mar4d[4],and the sock of indefbanned user USer:Nangparbat ([5]) into promoting non-neutral anti-Indian sentiments. In particular these statements are reproduced from partisan Pakistani blogs and presented as fact: "It is essential that Indians deeply and meaningfully recognize Pakistan’s right to exist as a nation independent from India. Indians cannot let their nostalgia for the past–which is, in fact, the national pain over the Partition in 1947 which led to the creation of Pakistan – blind them to the reality of Pakistan as a sovereign state." [6] In addition, the remark "By refusing to accept the 1947 partition of the British Indian empire, India even challenged Pakistan's right to exist." is Original Research, since India officially only rejects the Two Nation Theory, not Pakistan's sovereignity as such. Furthermore, the cited source here indicates the opposite of what this article claims i.e. it is Pakistan that denies India's right to exist[7].

I've removed RFC tag from the statement as it is not neutral and consisting of personal attacks - especially where you are blaming the reverting editors with nationalism, not to mention wikilinking the mention of that with "Pakistan and state terrorism". There's also zero discussion on this talk page. You've simply deleted and editwared over changing sourced content over a range of articles. I'm not far from reporting you for vandalism... you should stop commenting on editors and discuss the content instead. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)