Too naive. Calling for the destruction of Israel isn't the same as calling for the breakup of the UK, which would leave the inhabitants of England, Scotland and Wales free to live peacefully. The destruction of Israel necessarily involves the killing of forced removal of all the Jews in the region.

I guess its relevant, there was a lot more than a simple quiet no, he excitedly declared it. "No! Israel does not (shakes head no once with some force) have a right to exist"

@DJClayworth what do you base that view on? Because you posted it under every question, and I do not see it like that, so clearly that's not some universal truth.

Without getting into why antizionism is antisemitism, which is outside the context of this question, I'd just say it is not a minority opinion and congress passed a resolution declaring it. Here is some information, lets not debate it here nytimes.com/2023/12/10/us/politics/…

@hedgedandlevered what does that change? Israel is a country, countries can be criticized.

as DJClayworth mentioned above, "The destruction of Israel necessarily involves the killing [and/or] forced removal of all the Jews in the region"

It's fine to criticize a country and it's actions. But when you call for the destruction of a country that's a whole different thing. Image the difference between someone criticising your country's policies and saying that your country should be destroyed.

As I said, breakup of the UK is not the same thing. Apart from anything else, it's something that would only be decided by the inhabitants of the UK. Saying "Israel does not have the right to exist" means they want it destroyed even if the inhabitants of the country don't agree. Perhaps you could suggest a way to you think Israel should be destroyed without killing or expelling all the Jews?

@DJClayworth you keep saying things and assume what you say is universal truth just because you say so. And no, I am not interested in that debate, despite you trying to pull people into it, especially as it's not relevant for the question at all. Maybe you should post an answer at this point?

I don't think it's a universal truth. I'm very aware that some people believe that it's OK to kill or expel people of a certain race from the land they live in. I'm very aware of this indeed. As I said above, maybe you should explain to us what you think should happen to the Jews in Israel when their country is destroyed? Or how you would respond if someone said that your country did not have the right to exist?

@DJClayworth, it's true that Israel has provoked opinion in the region so violently, that it's entire population would probably have to flee if the state suddenly collapsed today. But saying it doesn't have a "right to exist" is not even necessarily saying the state must collapse - it is simply a denial of whatever politics the speaker thinks is associated with those who regularly ply arguments involving that term. I would personally say "right to exist" is meant synonymously with "Israel doing whatever the hell it likes in the region and the world, without facing destructive consequences".

One of the problems with this whole situation is that everybody tries to interpret the words of each side differently. One side says "Israel doesn't have the right to exist" but its supporters claim that just means "Israel should behave differently". But the other side thinks "Israel doesn't have the right to exist" means Israel does not have the right to exist. The situation would be better if people who think Israel should change its behaviour said "Israel should change its behaviour". A statement which I would be agreeing with wholeheartedly.

@DJClayworth, yes but the opponents of Israel (if we can so-call them that) never start their own arguments in terms of "rights to exist". They'd say things like "Israel must stop bombing Gaza", or "Israelis must stop stealing Palestinian land". The appearance in speech of a confusing term like "right to exist", is a shibboleth that a proponent of Israel is talking. And when an opponent of Israel is baited with a question about "rights to exist", many will nay-say what they believe are the implied politics of the baiter.

Sorry, Asking for the “U.K. to fall apart” is completely different than asking for “Israel to fall apart”. U.K isn’t the “Christian homeland” like Israel is the Jewish homeland. I don’t find this answer to be particularly useful

@Donald, of course Israel claims to be the "Jewish homeland", but that doesn't mean Jews (as defined in any of a variety of possible ways) all speak with one voice about whether they regard Israel as their homeland, and practically speaking it is not the homeland of the vast majority of Jews worldwide, any more so than the Vatican City (or even Jerusalem) is the homeland of the Christian (or ethnic European) in any common understanding of the word "homeland".

You say" the opponents of Israel (if we can so-call them that) never start their own arguments in terms of "rights to exist"." But the question seems to be about someone who who said exact

@Steve - If there was a group asking for the destruction of the Vatican, which is a city state and independent country itself, I would feel the same way. But interesting comparison.