The closest approximation to the argument against a state's right to exist was the end of the divine right of kings to rule.

In the English Parliament in 1689, the Bill of Rights was enacted, which entrenched the principle that sovereignty lay with Parliament - i.e. the state - that it was not bestowed on the monarch by divine prerogative.

Since then, (sovereign) states acknowledge the de facto existence of other (sovereign) states.

No state acknowledges that it, or any other state, exists by right.

MeisterEckhart wrote on Sep 17^th, 2025 at 12:00pm:

Of course, Kissinger, as a supremely accomplished diplomat, knew well that no Arab state, nor any state, would formally recognise Israel's right to exist... not even the US, despite its politicians and diplomats having used the term publicly many times.

What Kissinger was playing for was creating the illusion that the Arab states would not recognise Israel's existence de facto (which they were willing to do) by disingenuously wrapping it in sacral language and betting useful idiots would miss the distinction and assume that recognising Israel's right to exist is the same as recognising Israel's de facto existence.