(Opposing the actions of said state is, of course, a natural right and can be freely expressed by anyone).
No state has a right to exist; people have a right to self-determination, and a state of a particular form, and territorial extent may or may not be an realization of such a right, so even in that minimal framing (which I would say is more the motte Zionists retreat to when challenged than the bailey of the actual substantive meaning of the term in practical use by them), Zionism is a flawed and problematic proposal at best.
I'll try to describe this from my PoV: Zionism, to me, is just jewish-flavored nationalism. To me, the question "has Israel (the state) the right to exist" is almost nonsensical; I don't think that Italy, Germany, France or the US have any inherent "right" to exist, and the same would be true for Israel in my view.
The people that a state governs, however, do have an inherent right to fair representation of their interests (in my view), and this is where Israel often falls short.
There are a lot of non-jews living within Israels borders, and Israel (as a state) fails those people regularly (and, arguably, by design: it does not really want to protect interests of citizens that deviate from that jwewish national identity).
So I think questioning "western logic" with "why should Palestine (the state) have more of a right to exist than Israel?" is unhelpful framing that misses the main point ("citizens have a right to have their interests represented").
I dont think this is well supported, or the source of conflict. The state seems to do a fairly good job of providing for citizens within boarders. Arab Israeli citizens have the right to vote in Israeli elections, run for office, and serve in the Knesset. They make up roughly 1.9 million people (about 20% of Israel's population).
You can argue that these people have civic representational differences as minority group, but this is a very different situation than people living Gaza or the west bank, and their representational rights.
Because to me, those are (somewhat) autonomous regions under Israels control-- so still responsible for people living there.
Nation states influence each other all the time. They threaten, sanction, and impose restrictions, especially when in conflict without invoking responsibility.
Now I agree that isnt a very accurate characterization of this situation. It is much more of an occupation. I still dont think that invokes a responsibility of enfranchisement, but it certain invokes some responsibility for the occupier. The US occupied Japan following WWII, but that doesnt mean Japanese became US citizens, but there are moral obligations.
I model the Palestinian situation as a failed occupation where there is no progress towards end of occupation criteria. Neither party want integration, nor are they ready for peaceful coexistence.
I dont think Israel has a responsibility to enfranchise or integrate, but it does have a obligation to provide and maintain an option for coexistence, and perpetually put real effort towards achieving it. That means giving 2nd, 3rd, or 100th chances.
Whether or not a legally independent state exists with some or all of that territory within its borders, that area is effectively controlled by, and in large part (including all of the West Bank, though the exact administrative details differ in different locations in the WB) under military occupation by, Israel.
It applies to the State of Palestine as much as to the State of Israel, correct.
Of course, while I have heard many arguments for recognition of a State of Palestine with twrritory including some parts of the area bounded by the Mediterranean Sea and the internationally recognized borders of Egypr, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon, none of them have been that that State has a “right to exist".
And I haven't, in this discussion, stated a position on whether either Israel-within-some-borders or Palestine-within some-borders are proper realization of the right of self determination of some people living in the area described above. You’ve just assumed a position out of nowhere because I argued that a “right to exist” if the State of Israel is a fundamentally flawed and problematic position, with a reasoning that on its own terms applies equally to the same argument if it were made for the State of Palestine.
FWIW, I think the best realization of the self-determination rights of the people in the region would probably, in the near term at least, involve both a Jewish and a Palestinian Arab State within some borders, a situation to which there are many obstacles, not least of which is Israel’s long (consisting of most of the time since 1968 at least) campaign of genocide against the Palestinian Arab people, callibrated largely to avoid excessive blowback from the West (and particularly the US), with strategies enggaged in to preserve pretexts for continuing and escalating that campaign with reduced resistance, both direct and dippomatic (which includes, among other things, fostering the formation of Islamist network that gree into Hamas to split Palestinian resistance and have a less sympathetic organized opposition during the occupation of Gaza.)
> (Opposing the actions of said state is, of course, a natural right and can be freely expressed by anyone)
Unfortunately, the "soldier mindset" (as opposed to scout mindset) is dominant in this case, and I fear suggesting why would be rejected because of that very mindset. So no, the freedom is not there in practice.
"You're with us or against us" kind of thing, but only with the most expansive definition of what counts.
Hate is deadly and useless. Israel is a nation that is tightly bound and has the right to exist, as there are millions of people who consider themselves Israeli. Palestine is a nation and has the right to exist, as there are millions of people who consider themselves Palestinians. Zionism is the affirmation of the Israelis to be a nation proper. Palestinian identity is the affirmation of Palestinians to be the nation proper. Both things are OK, even if I will be promptly hated by both groups, I won't give the words meaning beyond what was originally given to them.
Brave, and I respect that position.
Myself, I would prefer to carefully phrase things to not get hated. I likely can't be of any help anyway, but I think the chances go down even further if both broader groups hate me equally and think I'm on the opposite team or can't see what the other lot are doing wrong.
> I won't give the words meaning beyond what was originally given to them.
"Orangeman" is a member of the Orange Order in Northern Ireland, named for the Dutch William of Orange who took over the UK at the beshest of parliament to support protestantism. William got the name from the principality of Orange, which is named after the city of Orange, which is in France and named after the Celtic word for foread or temple.
They wear the colour orange, even though the colour is named after the fruit (old English grouped this colour under "red"), the fruit being a corruption somewhere in probably-France of "Norange" (hence modern Spanish "naranja"), and before that Arabic.
Back to Dutch Prince William of Orange: The Dutch for the colour is "oranje"; for the fruit is "sinaasappel", literally "Chinese apple", hence the similar (but I'm told distinct species of) fruit with the English name of "mandarin".
Oranges are technically a kind of berry, unlike strawberries which are not.
The zest of an orange is an important ingredient of the mincemeat used in mince pies, which (despite the name) are generally vegetarian.
Words.
Colonialism has always been bad, Israel is clearly no different.
If Palestinians consider themselves a nation, they are a nation, just as we are. Neither of us should try to destroy each other.
And the state of Israel is recognized by other states and the UN.
A closer analogy would have been some proposals to dissolve the German state forever after WW2, and get its parts annexed by other states. But that didn't happen.
Not to mention that Nazi Germany was actually doing an actual genocide. But that wasn't sufficient to warrant the same fate for them as a nation.
The latter part definitely did. See Konigsberg (now Kaliningrad, a Russian exclave) and all the parts of Germany that were ceded to Poland.
And the expulsion of ethnic Germans living in non-German lands across Europe postwar was certainly a form of ethnic cleansing, even if you believe it was justified to remove the justification Germany had for prewar annexations like the Sudetenland.
I won't argue which is more appropriate in this context, but I think that's where the crux of the disagreement is.