Israel should not exist as a country.
Executive summary
The question whether "Israel should not exist as a country" collides with competing legal, historical and moral claims: Israel is a recognized sovereign state with diplomatic and legal roots in twentieth‑century international decisions and subsequent treaties [1] [2], yet critics argue its founding and ongoing policies—described by some as settler colonialism, ethnic displacement or apartheid—undermine any moral claim to exclusive sovereignty over the territory [3] [2]. Any judgment must weigh the facts of international recognition and security arguments against documented grievances, historical dispossession, and contemporary human‑rights critiques reported by scholars and activists [4] [3] [2].
1. Historical and legal foundations that anchor Israel’s existence
Supporters trace Israel’s legitimacy to historical Jewish ties, League/UN era mandates and the post‑1947 partition and statehood processes, noting that international instruments and later bilateral recognitions established it as a sovereign actor—the kind of state that international law treats as having a “right to exist” in practice even if that phrase is contested in doctrine [4] [1] [5]. Key diplomatic moves—such as reciprocal recognition moves and the Oslo process that saw the PLO accept Israel’s existence while Israel recognized the PLO—are cited as practical foundations for a two‑state framework rather than for erasing Israel [2].
2. Political and security arguments defending Israel’s continuance
Advocates frame Israel’s existence as a response to historic persecution of Jews and as a necessary guarantor of Jewish self‑determination and security in a hostile region, arguing that reversing or nullifying a state would imperil Jewish survival and destabilize the Middle East—an argument advanced in advocacy outlets and by Zionist commentators [4] [6]. Proponents also point to Israel’s wartime survival and capacity to defend itself against state and non‑state adversaries as practical reasons why it persists as a sovereign entity [6] [4].
3. Core arguments advanced for abolishing Israel or denying its legitimacy
Opponents assert that Israel’s creation involved dispossession of Palestinian populations and that ongoing occupation, settlement expansion and violent confrontations constitute settler‑colonial practices or apartheid—claims voiced in academic and opinion sources that argue the moral premise for a Jewish state built on those processes is illegitimate and that the question of "right to exist" distracts from the Palestinian right to resist or reclaim land [3] [7] [2]. These critiques often call for decolonial remedies, ranging from rights of return to dismantling structures seen as privileging one group over another [3].
4. International recognition, contested narratives, and political realities
In practice, Israel is a functioning sovereign state with broad international recognition and diplomatic relations, while debates about its legitimacy often shift into broader disputes about antisemitism, anti‑Zionism, and double standards in international forums—criticisms of Israel’s existence are sometimes characterized by Israeli defenders as anti‑Jewish in intent, a claim that figures prominently in both scholarly and advocacy narratives [2] [8]. At the same time, some scholars emphasize that robust criticism of policy is legitimate and that terms like "apartheid" and "right to exist" are legally and politically fraught and subject to differing interpretations [5] [2].
5. Ethical and pragmatic verdict: why abolition is neither legally straightforward nor likely to be just
A direct prescription that "Israel should not exist" faces immediate legal and pragmatic barriers—Israel’s de facto sovereignty, the international system’s recognition of states, and the absence of a clear legal mechanism to dissolve an established state [1] [5]—and morally risks trading one form of injustice for another by displacing millions and erasing collective claims; yet the moral force of Palestinian grievances and documented harms cannot be dismissed, demanding urgent remedy through accountability, rights restoration where possible, and negotiated political solutions rather than unilateral eradication of a state [3] [2] [7]. Ultimately, the sources indicate that the debate is less about existential nullification—which is impractical and likely unjust—and more about whether Israel’s policies and the regional arrangements can be reformed to secure rights, dignity and safety for both peoples [2] [5].