freediver wrote on Sep 15^th, 2025 at 8:01pm:


Does that include its right to exist as an ethno-supremacist apartheid state ?

MeisterEckhart wrote on Sep 15^th, 2025 at 8:06pm:


Do you understand why they do it?

freediver wrote on Sep 16^th, 2025 at 8:11am:

Yes, I do.

Centuries of European persecution of Jews have left all Jewish peoples convinced that Jews would never be safe living in Europe without the protection of a recognised Israeli state.

The notion of a 'right to exist' gained popularity in Europe by adding a moral dimension to state-creation that no state recognises in law, nor is it recognised in international law.

MeisterEckhart wrote on Sep 16^th, 2025 at 12:02pm:


Like I said, I am not asking you if the paperwork is correct. This is not a legal term we are discussing. But you are wrong about the absence of legal backing. International law is largely built in support of this principle, you just cannot see how.

The reason you cannot see how is that you are confused about the reason behind invoking a state's right to exist. It is not a tool used for state creation. In the absence of some kind of power vacuum or mutual consent, it is opposed to state creation. Hence your observation that no-one ever talks about Kurdistan's right to exist.

Quote:


The term had been in use for centuries prior. And you are still confused about the point of the term. It is not used to justify Israel's creation. And it is not used only for a single state. If that were true, you would not have previously gone to the trouble of thinking up states that have never existed for an example of a state to which the term is not applied. You see the reality of how the term is used, but you just cannot or do not want to clearly state it. The fact that people do not regularly talk about Australia's right to exist merely reflects the lack of apparent threat to Australia, not some view that the term only applies to Israel. For example, many people are talking about Ukraine's right to exist and whether Russia recognises it. Again, as with Israel, the term is not used in an attempt to justify Ukraine's initial creation.

freediver wrote on Sep 16^th, 2025 at 1:14pm:

Australians had that existential moment during WW2.

Australians then asserted their right to defend themselves and the state against aggressor(s), both acts that are recognised in local and international law.

There is no record of Australians, or anyone else, claiming Australia's right to exist ever... not even during WW2.

Israel's 'right to exist' rhetoric exploded in the region during the '70s when Kissinger used it in an attempt to corner the Arab states.

In international law, states are recognised as having sovereignty and the capacity to enter into relations with other states, but there is no explicit, codified “right to exist” for any state. Recognition is a political act, not a legal entitlement. That means when Kissinger (and later U.S. officials) pressed Arab governments to recognise Israel’s right to exist, he was framing the issue in moral-political terms rather than legal ones.

Kissinger’s Tactical Framing

Shifting the burden: By asking Arab states to recognise a “right” that wasn’t grounded in international law, Kissinger created a condition that Arab leaders could not easily accept without appearing to surrender their own political claims (especially regarding Palestinian self-determination and disputed territory).

Stalling device: Since Arab states could not meet that demand without undermining their negotiating stance, Kissinger ensured that recognition remained elusive. This kept the process in a state of managed stalemate—something he often preferred as a way to exert U.S. control over the pace of diplomacy.

Moral high ground: The phrase made Israel’s position appear as a simple matter of legitimacy and morality (“Do you accept its right to exist?”), rather than the more complex issues of borders, refugees, and occupation.

Frank wrote on Sep 16^th, 2025 at 2:50pm:

An unfortunate choice, given that many political scientists and historians call Belgium an 'artificial construct' or even a 'fiction' because it was stitched together by outsiders and is held together by compromise.

So, there'd be little to no chance of Belgians claiming Belgium's right to exist, even if every other European national was claiming that for their own respective state.

Despite that, however, Belgium is a recognised legitimate state.