The “Israel has a right to exist” argument has always bothered me because it accepts a weak premise.
Nations do not have some abstract, inherent, metaphysical “right to exist.” Not Israel, America, France, Pakistan, you name the country. States exist because they establish sovereignty, build institutions, control their territory, defend their borders, gain recognition, and survive.
That is the realist and only true, logical argument.
When someone says “Israel has no right to exist,” the strongest response is not to beg them to recognize Israel’s “right.” This is weak and defensive. That already puts Israel on trial in a way no other country is. The stronger response is to say simply: Israel DOES exist. It achieved sovereignty, built a state, and defended itself through repeated wars. It has borders, institutions, a military, a legal system, international recognition, and a people who are not going anywhere.
There is definitely a double standard, though. People do not demand France, Pakistan, Jordan, Turkey, or Egypt justify their “right to exist.” That standard is almost always applied uniquely to Israel, and yes, a lot of the time it is rooted in antisemitism or anti-Jewish hostility.
That is exactly why Israel’s defenders should stop making the weakest version of the argument.
Israel does not need to defend its existence as if its sovereignty depends on the moral permission of people who hate it. Israel’s case is much stronger than that.
Israel DOES exist because the Jewish people returned to political sovereignty in their historic homeland, built functioning institutions, accepted partition, declared independence, survived invasion, defended itself, absorbed refugees, developed a modern state, and maintained that sovereignty for over 75 years.
Stop playing into the emotional arguments and get real.