Why Israel Has the Right to Exist Like Any Other Country
The question of Israel’s right to exist is often framed as a political argument, but at its core it is a question about how modern states come into being, how international legitimacy works, and how history shapes present reality. For a small head trying to understand a very big and emotionally charged world, it helps to step back from slogans and look at the foundations calmly.
Every country that exists today does so because of a mix of history, population presence, political decisions, and international recognition. Israel is not unique in this regard, even though it is often treated as if it must meet a standard no other country is asked to satisfy.
Israel’s existence begins with the Jewish people’s long historical connection to the land. Jewish presence in the region dates back thousands of years, long before modern nation-states existed. While populations changed over time due to empires, conquests, and migration, Jewish communities never fully disappeared from the area. This continuous connection matters historically, even if history alone does not automatically justify modern borders.
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Jewish migration to the region increased significantly. This was driven by persecution in Europe, legal discrimination, and later, the trauma of the Holocaust. These migrations did not occur in a vacuum, but neither were they unique in a world where mass movements of people were reshaping borders everywhere.
After World War I, the region came under British control following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Britain did not invent the competing national aspirations in the land, but it did inherit responsibility for managing them. By the mid-20th century, both Jewish and Arab communities had developed strong national identities and political institutions.
In 1947, the United Nations proposed a partition plan to create two states, one Jewish and one Arab. The plan was accepted by Jewish leadership and rejected by Arab leadership. This moment matters not because it resolves every moral question, but because it shows that Israel’s creation was not a unilateral declaration without international involvement. It emerged through a global process that was consistent with how other post-imperial states were formed at the time.
When Israel declared independence in 1948, it was immediately attacked by neighboring states. Despite the war, Israel survived and was later recognized by the United Nations and the majority of the international community. Recognition is a key principle in international law. States exist because they are recognized as sovereign entities, not because everyone agrees with how they were formed.
Many countries that exist today were born from conflict, displacement, or controversial decisions. The borders of India and Pakistan, the creation of modern Turkey, the formation of many African states after colonialism, and even the unification of European countries all involved suffering and unresolved disputes. Yet their right to exist is not questioned in the same way.
Criticizing Israeli government policies is legitimate. Disagreeing with military actions, settlement expansion, or political leadership is part of normal international discourse. But questioning the existence of the state itself moves from policy criticism into something more fundamental. No other country is routinely asked to justify its existence as a condition of participating in global society.
It is also important to distinguish between the right of a state to exist and the rights of people living under conflict. Recognizing Israel’s right to exist does not negate Palestinian rights, suffering, or aspirations. Two things can be true at the same time. One people’s legitimacy does not require the erasure of another’s.
The idea that Israel uniquely lacks legitimacy often rests on the assumption that states must be morally pure at birth. History does not support this standard. States are human creations, shaped by compromise, force, negotiation, and circumstance. What matters is how they evolve, how they treat minorities, and how conflicts are addressed moving forward.
Israel today is a functioning state with a permanent population, defined institutions, and international relations. It participates in global trade, diplomacy, science, and culture. Millions of people were born there and know no other home. Denying the legitimacy of their state does not undo history. It only prolongs conflict.
From a legal perspective, Israel meets the criteria of statehood under international law. It has a defined territory, a permanent population, a government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. Whether borders are disputed does not invalidate statehood. Many recognized countries have disputed borders.
Emotionally, the topic remains charged because the conflict is unresolved. Pain, displacement, and fear shape how people view legitimacy. But emotional weight does not change legal reality. States do not cease to exist because their creation was contested.
For a small head trying to understand a big world, the hardest truth is often the simplest. Israel exists because it was created through historical processes similar to those that created many other countries, and because it has been recognized and sustained as a sovereign state.
That does not mean the story is finished. It does not mean injustice does not exist. It does not mean criticism is invalid. It means that the baseline question of existence is settled in the same way it is for every other country.
Peace will not come from denying reality. It comes from acknowledging it and working forward from there.
Understanding that distinction doesn’t solve the conflict.
But it makes the conversation more honest.
And honesty is where any real solution has to begin.
