The statement that "Israel has a right to exist" and its less common sibling "Israel has an absolute right to exist" are two statements I have heard for may years. In all honesty, I do not know what either means. Could someone explain? The main difficulties I have are as follows:
(1) How can something like a country have rights? I know it is fahionable among federalist types in the US to say that states have rights and wonder if this is the same sort of phenomena.
In the context of the United States, the classical idea of rights are of something possessed by an individual which he or she may assert against the State or community. This includes the right to engage in unpopular speech or follow a religion different from the majority of the community. The need for a right comes from the fact that the community through the government holds a monopoly on violence. To say that a state or nation has rights turns this notion on its head.
On a related note, who or what would a nation assert its rights against? Other nations? The UN? The case is not analogous to the individual who needs a trump card to play against the monopoly on violence held by the state. In the international realm, no one holds a monopoly on violence.
I wonder if "Israel has a right to exist" is really just a sloppy way of expressing something more like "Israelis have a right to a homeland".
(2) What is a "right to exist" and how far does it extend. If a nation has a right to exist, does that mean that even if the citizens wanted to dissolve their nation that the right of the nation would prevent this? What if the citizens of two nations desired to merge their nations? Would the rights of the nations simpliciter prevent the rights of the citizens qua citizens to do so?
But the last question gets us into the rights of groups to have homelands. (Hmmm, New England as the Yankee homeland does have a bit of a nice sound ...)
Say Israel decided to petition to become a state in the United States - would Israel's right to exist preclude this?
(3) Is the right to exist special to Israel, or does any and every state get this right to exist?
This might prove to be an interesting new theory of international law that Native American tribes could use to overcome the numerous Supreme Court decisions that invest the US Congress with plenary power to snatch tribal sovereignty away.
Does this theory of a right to exist give Putin the right to reunite the former Soviet Union in an effort to preserve the right of the Soviet Union to exist? If so, what about Estonia's right to exist? Do we need a balancing test?
What about Lebanon's right to exist? Tibet?
Or if this right is special to Israel alone, how did Israel acquire this rather strange right?
At any rate, I am rather confused as to what 'Israel has a right to exist' means. I suspect it is some form of right wing sound bite that does not survive serious analysis (or even unserious analysis, supra). Anyone willing to answer these questions and explain what is meant by 'Israel has a right to exist' is welcome to do so. (But keep it philosophical - rhetorical grenades NOT welcome.)