Tucker Carlson Smacks Down Interviewer on Israel's "Right to Exist": Does Lebanon? Does Gaza?

[Gary Seven]

No Breakwind, no it hasn't, the Zionists and British began plans for ethnic cleansing of Palestinians during WW1. This was all part of the agreement for wealthy Jews financing Britain's WW1 effort.

Israel is the recipient of land not the giver. The British gave land to the Zionists that was already occupied and the majority living there were not Jewish. The Arabs went from being colonized by the Turks to being colonized by the colonial British to being dominated by colonizing nationalist Jews.

If I steal 100 acres of land from you, then hand 10 back to you, how can you possibly describe that as me giving you land?

Zionism never existed in Palestine, no Jew there cared for the ridiculous idea, it was imported from Europe and developed from the same rabid nationalism that gave rise to the Hitler and Mussolini.

A people occupied by foreign invaders has a right to even violently resist occupation, that right is embodied in the UN charter.

That doesn't matter, even if true, it doesn't matter. The Zionist project is failing and was predicted to fail even by Jews, it is unsustainable to run a nation as it does and expect to live in peace, absolutely ridiculous.

I pray for it's eventual fall.

 

[Darkwind]

No Breakwind, no it hasn't, the Zionists and British began plans for ethnic cleansing of Palestinians during WW1. This was all part of the agreement for wealthy Jews financing Britain's WW1 effort.

Israel is the recipient of land not the giver. The British gave land to the Zionists that was already occupied and the majority living there were not Jewish. The Arabs went from being colonized by the Turks to being colonized by the colonial British to being dominated by colonizing nationalist Jews.

If I steal 100 acres of land from you, then hand 10 back to you, how can you possibly describe that as me giving you land?

Zionism never existed in Palestine, no Jew there cared for the ridiculous idea, it was imported from Europe and developed from the same rabid nationalism that gave rise to the Hitler and Mussolini.

A people occupied by foreign invaders has a right to even violently resist occupation, that right is embodied in the UN charter.

That doesn't matter, even if true, it doesn't matter. The Zionist project is failing and was predicted to fail even by Jews, it is unsustainable to run a nation as it does and expect to live in peace, absolutely ridiculous.

So you are a liar.

Israel has always been open to peaceful Islam, still is. That is a mistake on their part.

Israel has legal and historical rights to the land. The United Nations agreed and so did we.

In fact, Jews have a better claim to the Levant than the Palestinians. Yet, it is ONLY the Palestinians we are enacting genocide.

The Levant is not occupied by foreign invaders; that is the whole problem with you idiots. They have a right to the land.
The Zionist project? More conspiracy from the left?

Zionism is nothing more than the belief of a Jewish homeland. Nothing more, nothing less.

The biggest problem with the left is that they hate jews, much like the Palestinians and other Islamists, and that pushes you to be wrong.

 

[Votto]

This is a beautiful smackdown. Don't ever try to out-debate Tucker.



March 21, 2026 Tucker Carlson: "The first thing that Israel did within two weeks of this war starting, which is supposedly existential for them, was take southern Lebanon, take someone else's country, as they have done repeatedly. And no one even mentions that. And so I guess I would be opposed to that because I guess I think Lebanon has a right to exist. I thought Gaza had a right to exist. But I noticed that as soon as we started rights, only one country gets them."

It is a great question. At what point does a government lose it's legitimacy?

For example, North Korea starves its people to death, and the rest are oppressed beyond comprehension in addition to being slowly starved to death.

Similarly, the people of Iran have oil, therefore, their people should have one of the highest standards of living in the world, yet 80% live in poverty as the Iranian regime either pockets the money for themselves or use it to fight Israel and the US around the world as they build WMDs. Then they gun down about 30,000 of their citizen protestors.

 

[munkle]

It is a great question. At what point does a government lose it's legitimacy?

How about when it bombs the crap out of a tiny nation like Gaza and butchers 20,000 children?

 

[Churchill]

Correct. No one has called for the extermination of the Palestinian people. They have called for the extermination of HAMAS and all their supporters. Rightly so. A more extreme belief system does not exist in comparison to HAMAS.

So stating some regime has no right to exist is not to advocate mass extermination, again we agree.

I'm not in a minority. History tells us that the US considered it a European issue up until Pearl Harbor. The European nations treated it exactly as I described until the attacks began, but by then, it was far too late.

As is most leftist ideals.

 

[Churchill]

So you are a liar.

No, your president who was elected on no more regime change, no more wars, is a liar.

Israel has always been open to peaceful Islam, still is. That is a mistake on their part.

WTF does that even mean? Who is "Israel" some nutcase that says "Oh, I have a divine right!" ? Zionists had little to say about Islam in the 1920s, please provide a source for your claim. Islam has never espoused antisemitism, whereas European Christianity has! For God's sake man, type into Google "Where did antisemitism begin":

See? antisemitism arose centuries before Islam existed, it was Christian Europe that produced the Holocaust, there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING HISTORICAL remotely comparable to the Holocaust in Arab or Islamic history - go and look for yourself.

Israel has legal and historical rights to the land. The United Nations agreed and so did we.

That is the basis of all colonial arguments, the British had a right to decimate Aborigines, the British colonies (i.e. US) had a right to decimate American Indians, same old same old, the Christians had a right to slaughter Jews and (heretical) Christians in 1099 AD.

In fact, Jews have a better claim to the Levant than the Palestinians. Yet, it is ONLY the Palestinians we are enacting genocide.

Not according to international law. I cant walk into somebody's yard and say my interpretation of my chosen theological sources proves I have a right to kick you out and live here.

The Levant is not occupied by foreign invaders; that is the whole problem with you idiots. They have a right to the land.
The Zionist project? More conspiracy from the left?

It is now occupied by European Jews and the offspring of European Jews who were allowed (by Zionist "law") to emigrate to Palestine!

Thirty years before 1948 when a few countries recognized the state of Israel, the British were already facilitating the immigration of Jews and no others, the British already worked with the Zionists (who were NOT from Palestine) to plan for the expulsion of "Palestinian peasantry" from Palestine - would you like to see the evidence?

You are really OK with all that??

Zionism is nothing more than the belief of a Jewish homeland. Nothing more, nothing less.

Who told you that? Ben Gurion? Netanyahu? Do you really have no idea how many Jews were opposed to the idea" do you really not know that Zionist Jews MURDERED anti-Zionist Jews? I mean really? do you have any idea WTF you are even talking about ?

The biggest problem with the left is that they hate jews, much like the Palestinians and other Islamists, and that pushes you to be wrong.

What you glibly call "the left" is in fact a set of ideas espoused by Jews, Karl Marx was a Jew! so may I call you and antisemite?

 

[Captain Creeper]

Tucker must have contracted syphilis and had it spread to his brain, because that ************ is nuttier than squirrel shit.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

Well, when you make war and follow genocide, this is the result.

So, you admit, Israel has been engaging in genocide (Gaza) and complicit murder (West Bank)?

 

[Votto]

How about when it bombs the crap out of a tiny nation like Gaza and butchers 20,000 children?

If and when a regime targets innocent people, you are not suppose to film it and brag to the world about doing it.

Even the Nazi regime tried to hide what they did.

But Hamas are just mindless animals.

All countries commit atrocities during war, like the allies firebombing Dresden.

The Firebombing of Dresden: The Terrible Destruction and Its Aftermath

Dresden was not the first, or the last city to burn during World War II, but it would be one of the most controversial. By early 1945, there were whispers on the wind that World War II would soon be finished. German forces were exhausted but still defiant, and the Red Army was gaining major

www.historydefined.net

 

[Votto]

So, you admit, Israel has been engaging in genocide (Gaza) and complicit murder (West Bank)?

Israel has been at war since it became a nation state with all the loons around it.

But even so, Muslims kill more Muslims than Jews or Christians.

It is like Blacks in the US as more Blacks kill each other than whites.

In both instances, the Muslim culture and black culture should spend more time reflecting on their own issues instead of blaming all their problems on others.

 

[Shusha]

View attachment 1234145

Modern antisemitism (antizionism) is simply an extension of the restrictions and segregation. It is directly related to interacting with Muslim theology. It is an exterminationist ideology which seeks to erase the Jewish people as a people. Examples include:

• Jews are "European" or "from Brooklyn".
• Jews are "Khazar converts".
• Jews are not indigenous to the land.
• Jews are colonizers.
• The land has always been Arab/Palestinian.
• Palestinians are Canaanites.
• The Temple never existed, the Temple Mount is a Muslim holy site.
• Hebrew was a dead language, modern Hebrew is made up.
• Jews are not an ethnic or cultural group, just a religion.
• Jewish scripture and religious belief are corrupted, replaced, superceded.
• Jews are not permitted to have a nation-state.
• Israel is illegal, or Israel's creation is illegal.
• Israel doesn't have the "right" to exist.
• Jewish national identity is inherently evil.

 

[Churchill]

Modern antisemitism (antizionism) is simply an extension of the restrictions and segregation. It is directly related to interacting with Muslim theology. It is an exterminationist ideology which seeks to erase the Jewish people as a people. Examples include:

• Jews are "European" or "from Brooklyn".
• Jews are "Khazar converts".
• Jews are not indigenous to the land.
• Jews are colonizers.
• The land has always been Arab/Palestinian.
• Palestinians are Canaanites.
• The Temple never existed, the Temple Mount is a Muslim holy site.
• Hebrew was a dead language, modern Hebrew is made up.
• Jews are not an ethnic or cultural group, just a religion.
• Jewish scripture and religious belief are corrupted, replaced, superceded.
• Jews are not permitted to have a nation-state.
• Israel is illegal, or Israel's creation is illegal.
• Israel doesn't have the "right" to exist.
• Jewish national identity is inherently evil.

Some Jews are from Brooklyn, some Jews were indigenous and they were mostly opposed to Zionism a century ago, some Jews were colonizers, nobody knows for sure what the demographics of Palestine once were, Hebrew is not made up.

A person can convert and become a Jew, even Israel will accept that, so some Jews are not part of any ancient ethnic group.

Claims to be an ethnic Jew are meaningless because there is no agreed genetic test for it, even Israel abandoned plans to use genetic testing when deciding is a person was a Jew.

People question other people's beliefs all the time, not just those of Jews.

If I say Zionism is evil and that's my belief, you have a right to question that belief and so I too have a right to question a Zionist's beliefs.

No person, including Jewish people is permitted to break international law, if having a "nation state" necessitates violating international law then of course such a state must not be permitted, it must change and adhere to international law, this applies to all UN members states not just Israel.

Israel was recognized by several nations back in 1948, so in that sense its mere existence is technically legal. But there is no hard definition as to the legality of a state's existence.

Is Israel is deemed to have a right to exist then so does a Palestinian state.

Ideologies are evil and of course people who promote such ideologies can rightly be regarded as evil. National Socialism was evil, and Hitler, Goering, Himmler etc. were by extension evil.

How does one decide if an ideology, any ideology is evil?

 

[Shusha]

...some Jews were indigenous

Indigeneity belongs to a collective, not to individuals. ALL JEWS are indigenous to that land. To deny that is to erase the Jewish people.

 

[Shusha]

How does one decide if an ideology, any ideology is evil?

I'd argue that exterminationist ideologies are universally evil.

 

[Churchill]

Indigeneity belongs to a collective, not to individuals.

So an individual cannot be indigenous?

ALL JEWS are indigenous to that land.

Prove it. Also are only Jews indigenous to Palestine?

To deny that is to erase the Jewish people.

Why should I accept an unprovable claim as if it were fact?

Tell me how can my rejecting the claim that every Jew is indigenous to Palestine equate to "erasing" anyone? what do you mean anyway by "erase"?

 

[Shusha]

But there is no hard definition as to the legality of a state's existence.

The very fact that Israel's "right to exist" is questioned, while no other state's is questioned is antizionist and exterminationist, as it requires the dismantling of the not just the state, but the IDEA of a state for the Jewish people.

A State either exists, or it doesn't. There are definitions of a State's eligibility for statehood. There are principles in international law of sovereignty, political independence, and territorial integrity. The question is not whether an existing State has a legal right to exist (it does, obvs) but whether other States or political movements have a right to dismantle a State. And the legal answer to that is clearly - NO.

 

[Churchill]

The very fact that Israel's "right to exist" is questioned, while no other state's is questioned is antizionist and exterminationist, as it requires the dismantling of the not just the state, but the IDEA of a state for the Jewish people.

I questioned what it means, how does one decide if a state does or does not have a right to exist, don't you know?

If there really is such a thing as a "right to exist" then there must necessarily be a way to evaluate whether some state does or does not have that right, this is a logical necessity.

A State either exists, or it doesn't.

Does the Nazi state exist?

There are definitions of a State's eligibility for statehood. There are principles in international law of sovereignty, political independence, and territorial integrity. The question is not whether an existing State has a legal right to exist (it does, obvs) but whether other States or political movements have a right to dismantle a State. And the legal answer to that is clearly - NO.

Well the allies (including my grandfather) caused the Nazi state to cease to exist, so there, that's a real counter example, are you unhappy about it though because it might have been illegal?

Clearly a state can claim it has a right to exist and another state can claim it does not and take action to stop it from existing, there are countless examples in history, I don't know why you find this so controversial as a concept.

It's quite amusing really, the Israelis openly take action to violently impose regime change in Iran, yet the prospect of some other states seeking to impose regime change in Israel is somehow outrageous.

 

[Shusha]

So an individual cannot be indigenous?

Don't be obtuse. Not what I said. The definition of "indigenous" belongs to the collective, not to individuals. A PEOPLE are indigenous. Individuals belong (or don't) to the PEOPLE who hold indigeneity.

Also are only Jews indigenous to Palestine?

One could argue that the national identity of Palestine originated in that territory. But I don't think that is the same as being indigenous.

Understanding the term “indigenous” Considering the diversity of indigenous peoples, an official definition of “indigenous” has not been adopted by any UN-system body. Instead the system has developed a modern understanding of this term based on the following:
• Self- identification as indigenous peoples at the individual level and accepted by the community as their member.
• Historical continuity with pre-colonial and/or pre-settler societies
• Strong link to territories and surrounding natural resources
• Distinct social, economic or political systems
• Distinct language, culture and beliefs
• Form non-dominant groups of society
• Resolve to maintain and reproduce their ancestral environments and systems as distinctive peoples and communities.

Tell me how can my rejecting the claim that every Jew is indigenous to Palestine equate to "erasing" anyone? what do you mean anyway by "erase"?

Because it disconnects (erases) the Jewish people from that land. It becomes common discourse. Then it travels through official channels like when UNESCO passed a resolution for a protected world heritage site which erased the Jewish people and claimed that site to be ONLY a Muslim site. Just as an example. That's how an entire peoples get erased.

 

[Shusha]

I questioned what it means, how does one decide if a state does or does not have a right to exist, don't you know?

You misunderstand. (Intentional). States exist or they don't. There is no "right" to exist. They do or they don't.

If there really is such a thing as a "right to exist" then there must necessarily be a way to evaluate whether some state does or does not have that right, this is a logical necessity.

There are criteria for evaluating the eligibility for statehood. The Montevideo Convention lists the criteria. They are:

• a defined territory;
• a permanent population;
• a government;
• the capacity to enter into relations with other states

Some also consider recognition as relevant.

Does the Nazi state exist?

No. There is no such thing a "State of Nazi". And this continual comparison of Israel to Nazi is Jew-demonization, plain and simple.

Clearly a state can claim it has a right to exist and another state can claim it does not and take action to stop it from existing,

No. That would not be in accordance with international law.

It's quite amusing really, the Israelis openly take action to violently impose regime change in Iran, yet the prospect of some other states seeking to impose regime change in Israel is somehow outrageous.

You are conflating many different things. I'll just say that a change of government does not affect the existence of a State.

 

[Churchill]

You misunderstand. (Intentional). States exist or they don't. There is no "right" to exist. They do or they don't.

So how should I respond if a person asks me "Does Israel have a right to exist"?

There are criteria for evaluating the eligibility for statehood. The Montevideo Convention lists the criteria. They are:

• a defined territory;
• a permanent population;
• a government;
• the capacity to enter into relations with other states

Some also consider recognition as relevant.

Alright.

No. There is no such thing a "State of Nazi".

I never said "State of Nazi" you misread my words.

And this continual comparison of Israel to Nazi is Jew-demonization, plain and simple.

I disagree, take my remarks about the historic Nazi State, do you regard those remarks as German-demonization?

No. That would not be in accordance with international law.

What would make it legal? a UN resolution to use force?

You are conflating many different things. I'll just say that a change of government does not affect the existence of a State.

Of course it does, Germany is Germany but it was once a Nazis state and is no more. Likewise Israel is a Zionist state today but could be something different in the future.