this post was submitted on 25 Jun 2025
92 points (89.0% liked)

Canada

10101 readers
817 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Arkouda@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It’s interesting you would make this point, since there is no right to for a given state to exist in international law. There’s a right to self determination. But that is not the same thing.

Considering it is International law that grants the states existence in the first place, I would say that is a moot point.

[–] wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

That's just not true. State exists or they don't de facto. Self determination applies to people, not states. States have a right to territorial integrity, aka not getting attacked, but that's it.

[–] Arkouda@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

A right to territorial integrity and to not be attacked is literally the right to exist.

[–] wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Except it isn't. They are two different legal concepts.

[–] Arkouda@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The simple fact that under international law a state has a right to territorial integrity and safety from aggressive actions means that a state has a right to exist within their borders under international law.

You are free to elaborate at any time on your point of view.

[–] wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

If that were the case then a state formed after conquest would be legitimate. But it clearly isn't.

Feel free to refer to Francesca Albanese, lawyer and scholar of internal law and current UN rapporteur for more question. I have no doubt that she is just vaguely more competent (and clearly more morally correct) than you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlbFSpNASO4

[–] Arkouda@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

You should try forming a point of view of your own before attempting conversation in a very nuanced subject.

[–] wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

My point of view couldn't be more clear. The state of Israel as it exists must be dismantled and a single state of equal rights for all must be established. The right to returned of the millions of Palestinians refugees must be complied with, and reparations should be paid.

Yours on the other hand seems to be vague handwaiving of Zionist propaganda.