The "right to exist"

I was listening to the BBC last night, and in a report on the continuing strife in "Israel," it was mentioned that a key sticking point is that "Hamas" does not recognize the right of "Israel" to exist.

This is something I’ve wondered about for years. Just what is the "right to exist?" Can you exist without a right to exist? Can you have a right to exist, but not actually exist? Which comes first, existence or the right to exist? Who has the power to grant existence or nonexistence, and the "right" to same? Can you kill someone and still recognize their right to exist? Or spare someone’s life while denying their right to exist?

It’s a fake argument. The concept of a "right to exist" was created to be an inflexible position that neither side would yield on. "Rights" are human-created entitlements to some protections of individuals, like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and equality before the law.

For "nations," it’s a bit different. "Nations" are abstractions, impositions of specific groups of humans to control land masses and the people within them. The "United States of America," for example, resulted from "European" settlement of the "New World," and the displacement and extermination of the indigenous occupants, known as "Indians." Indeed, all "nations" are the result of settlement, control, and political concentration of power.

In the case of "Israel"/"Palestine," both contestants for "nationhood" are fictions. There was not much of a "Palestinian" identity before the establishment of "Israel," and there was no "Israel" before 1948, when the status of "nationhood" was granted by the "United Nations," itself a human-created entity only three years in existence at the time.

The establishment of a "national" homeland for "Jews," a movement known as "Zionism," is at its root the same as the establishment of any "nation" – the identity of a group of people with common religion, ethnicity, historical experience, and place. The ancient land of "Israel" included the "province" of "Judea," the home of the "Judeans," the ancestors of today’s "Jews." Somehow the "Judeans" are able to claim control over all of "Israel." And thensome.

The plot is thickening. Jimmy Carter has written a book, "Palestine: Peace not Apartheid," and is being viciously attacked by what is known as "the Israeli lobby." Alexander Cockburn writes about the attacks in his usual insightful manner in "CounterPunch." Cockburn observes that the attempted demonizing of Carter is backfiring, and fueling sales of his book. The lock that the "Israeli lobby" has had on "American" public opinion is finally starting to break. No small factor in this break is the incompetence and scheming of the Bush crime family. As I have said many times, a criminal operation is ill-suited for diplomacy, peace-making, or problem-solving. It is only suited for crime.

Add to this the suspected Bush crime family/"Israeli" plan to bomb Iran with nuclear weapons, and the entire Mideast is on the verge of becoming an inferno. Then, of course, there is the euphemised "Iraq war." It is called a "war" for propaganda purposes, the truth being it is an occupation that followed an illegal invasion.

Will the Bush crime family and "Israel" bomb Iran? Most likely, but not for the obvious reasons. The Bush crime family is a criminal operation by definition, so they engage in criminal activities. The "Israeli" government, as a proxy for the Bush regime and by virtue of its criminal actions in their own occupation of "Palestine," is in essence a criminal state. A partnership between two criminal regimes pretty well guarantees criminal actions. Planet Earth, beware.

The greatest tragedy in this impending conflagration is that it is all based on the imaginary concept of identity: people imposing a cohesion, a oneness, upon themselves, and projecting a similar oneness on others. "Us" and "them."

Most absurd of all is the identity with the Bush crime family. It’s understandable that people inside the family – Bush, Cheney, Rice, Negroponte, et. al. – would identify with it, but what about the rest of the BCF’s supporters?

For the haterati – Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Hannity, Savage, Coulter, and Beck – it’s also understandable. They get a lot of money and attention. But that still leaves the rest of the country. Is there enough identity with the Bush criminal regime to support another war? We’ll soon find out.

Maybe the question we should be asking is this: Does the Bush crime family have a right to exist?