> That's the "correct" that matters. Not the "I'd like to put words in your mouth and pretend you meant something you don't".

I think I made it clear that I don't think parent post was saying that.

> Israel is legal abstraction, not human life and as such has no "fundamental rights" whatsoever. Humans have fundamental rights, however, and those rights always trump the non-rights of state entities.

I don't know what any of that means. Does the US have fundamental rights? When it was attacked by Japan in WW2, did it have a right to defend itself? What does that even mean if "the US" has no fundamental rights?

(You could mean a lot of different things with this statement, hence my asking for a clarification. But there's a lot of history and philosophy about these concepts, and just FYI I believe you are stating a very minority view on how to think about countries.)

> You do know that the reason Zionists harp on about "Israel's right to exist" is to deny the victim's of that state's violence legal redress, right?

No, the reason Zionists "harp on" about Israel's right to exist is because so many people believe Israel, uniquely among countries, doesn't have a right to exist. For the first 30 years of its history, this included most of Israel's neighbors, who didn't just abstractly believe in Israel not having a right to exist - they went to war with Israel several times with the aim of getting rid of it.

Even today, some of Israel's neighbors insist it doesn't have the right to exist, including Iran, which is a hair away from having nukes, and which has spent billions of its people's resources to try and destroy Israel. This is not an abstract debate, its a very real threat to the lives of all Israelis.

> > That's the "correct" that matters. Not the "I'd like to put words in your mouth and pretend you meant something you don't".

> I think I made it clear that I don't think parent post was saying that.

You did not. You associated them with people who are advocating for a violent overthrow of the Israeli regime and with those who think Israel is the only state without a fundamental right to exist.

> I don't know what any of that means. Does the US have fundamental rights?

No, because fundamental rights are rights derived from natural law, roughly equivalent to the UDHR: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma... Did the Soviet Union have a right to exist? Did its dissolution by its leaders violate its fundamental rights?

> > You do know that the reason Zionists harp on about "Israel's right to exist" is to deny the victim's of that state's violence legal redress, right?

> No, the reason Zionists "harp on" about Israel's right to exist is because so many people believe Israel, uniquely among countries, doesn't have a right to exist.

No. They do it because in 1948 and 1967 Israel conducted ethnic cleansings of Palestine and drove out its native inhabitants to create a Jewish supremacist state with a Jewish majority. Zionists can't (for now) argue that ethnic cleansing is alright, so instead they argue that if the victims of those cleansing were allowed to return, Israel would no longer be a Jewish-majority state and that would somehow violate Israel's fictive "fundamental rights". E.g., the Palestinian majority would probably prefer if the name of the state was changed (back) to "Palestine" rather than "Israel".

In the 1990s there was a British boxer who suffered severe brain damage during a fight and was paralyzed. So he sued the British boxing federation for medical negligence since there was no ringside doctors present. The compensation the court awarded the injured boxer was so heavy that the British boxing federation had to sell everything and eventually it went bankrupt. Did the verdict violate the British boxing federation's "right to exist"?