Mfcttrf

As someone who is interested in the Israeli-Palestinian question one phrase that comes up in the pro-Israeli position is the insistence that the Palestinians recognise 'Israels right to exist'.

What should be understood by this assertion?

After all, I don't ask a pear of its right to exist. It simply exists. More-over I can't ask the pear to recognise my right to exist. Whereas, of course, the reciprocal question can be asked of Israel - that is the right of the Palestinian people to exist. After all, Golda Meir infamously said:

'When was there an independent Palestinian people with a Palestinian state? … It was not as though there was a Palestinian people in Palestine considering itself as a Palestinian people and we came and threw them out and took their country away from them. They did not exist'

A right that can be demanded where the reciprocal right cannot be strikes me as a very curious form of right. It appears then less of a right and merely a demand and a demand backed up by force - the military might of one of the strongest militarised states in the Middle East backed up by the most militarised state on this planet - the United States (and that by a very large margin). Some right.

Moreover, when we look at the former Soviet Union - we see that the peoples of the Soviet Union are still there - they haven't gone anywhere. They still speak Russian (and other languages). They still practise their religion (apparently there was a resurgence after the fall of the Soviet Union). The buildings are all there too - Red Square and so on.

So what ought to be understood by 'Israels right to exist?'. Is it's particular political configuration? But then again, the United Kingdom is recognisably still the same state it was a thousand years ago despite many political changes - including its expansion into an empire in the 17th century and then it's breakup in the 20C (and apparently if the SNP has its way - the further break up of a four hundred union!).

Is there perhaps a legal dimension? But according to Wikipedia there is no such right under International Law. So it seems this then turns on what is meant by such a right - and hence my question: what is meant by such a right?

Answers that point to the serious literature will be appreciated.

The reason Israel demands that the Palestinians recognize Israel's so-called "right to exist" is that in so doing, they would officially relinquish any and all claims they have on the land they owned before Israel was founded and from which they were evicted by the Israelis in 1948.

They naturally refuse to relinquish those claims because to do so means they accept Israel's conquest of what was once their land as legitimate, and in that moment they become people without any claim to the land. It means admitting complete defeat.

No one has yet devised some method of getting them to do so.

Wikipedia provides a brief history of the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181:

Following World War II and the establishment of the United Nations, the General Assembly resolved that a Special Committee be created "to prepare for consideration at the next regular session of the Assembly a report on the question of Palestine." It would consist of the representatives of Australia, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Guatemala, India, Iran, Netherlands, Peru, Sweden, Uruguay and Yugoslavia. In the final report of September 3, 1947, seven members of the Committee in Chapter VI "expressed themselves, by recorded vote, in favour of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union" (reproduced in the Report). The Plan proposed "an independent Arab State, an independent Jewish State, and the City of Jerusalem". On November 29, 1947, the General Assembly recommended the adoption and implementation of a Plan of Partition with Economic Union, General Assembly Resolution 181, a slightly modified version of that proposed by the majority in the Report of September 3, 1947, 33 votes in favor, 13 against, and 10 abstentions. The vote itself, which required a two-third majority, was a dramatic affair. It led to celebrations in the streets of Jewish cities, but was rejected by the Arab Palestinians and the Arab League.

This may be viewed as the basis for the right of Israel to exist.

There was no Palestinian state prior to this resolution but a British Mandate according to Wikipedia:

The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine was a proposal by the United Nations, which recommended a partition of Mandatory Palestine at the end of the British Mandate.

Since the Arab League rejected Resolution 181 and this history of a prior British Mandate, this may be viewed as a justification for rejecting the existence of a prior Palestinian state.

That may offer a modern political justification for Israel's "right to exist".

This becomes more interesting if one accepts a philosophical/theological perspective of interest to Judaism, Christianity and perhaps even Islam that Israel has a divine right, guaranteed by miraculous protection, to exist as a people.

Also if one believes that Yahweh (God or Allah) promised this land to them, as long as they were obedient, members of these religions who reject this state may involve themselves in rejecting the divine will of their God. Of course, it may also be divine will that the Jewish people be punished for disobedience and temporarily lose this land. Regardless, members of these religions need to tread carefully on the existence of Israel.

Wikipedia contributors. (2019, July 31). Israel and the United Nations. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 20:47, August 8, 2019, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel_and_the_United_Nations&oldid=908735611

Wikipedia contributors. (2019, July 25). United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 20:55, August 8, 2019, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine&oldid=907826765

You could probably write an encyclopedia based on various interpretations of the words "right to exist" in relation to Israel. The issue embraces politics, religion, history and on and on.

Frank Hubeny's answer discusses some of the legal background. However, many people feel that the British and the United Nations had no right to set aside land in the Middle East for the creation of a Jewish state. Thus, some nations recognize Israel as a sovereign nation, while others don't.

Another common claim is that Jews lived there first (although there were actually other people living there even before the Jews). However, Arabs have also lived there for a very long time, a period during which many Jews were living in Eastern Europe.

Then there's the theological view that Israel is a holy land. (I think this view is largely in line with Zionism.)

Others argue that Israel's right to exist is outweighed by the violence and lack of stability its creation has brought to the region - and to the world.

One way to put it in perspective is to ask if other people also have the right to have their own national homeland, and whether Israelis (or Jews in general) would support that right. It's a pretty good bet that an attempt to carve a Native American nation in the middle of the United States would get a thumbs down.