Does Israel have a "right" to exist?

We often hear the mantra "Israel has a right to exist." Is this a fallacy, perhaps based on the definition of "right"? Or is it a red herring, diverting attention from the Palestinian genocide?

Do all countries have an inherent "right" to exist? If so, where does this right come from? Or do no countries have this right? Some countries, but not others?

 

Ah, welcome to diplomacy and political theory, where doublespeak is the official language, contradictions are companions, and logical fallacies join hands to tango in the public square.

Firstly, saying "Israel has a right to exist" is a tautological statement, similar to saying 'water is wet.' As long as Israel is a recognized country by a majority of the global community, it inherently exists. Like unicorns, countries don't lose their existence merely because some people do not believe in them. It's not like Dart Vader's death star is about to vaporize it.

Now, if you're talking about the moral 'right to exist,' we'd have to dive headfirst into the murky waters of ethics where there might be more dangerous predators than in a Jaws movie. Ethically, every country should ideally have a 'right to exist' as long as they respect other nations' same 'right to exist.' But history has seen the rise and fall of many countries, efficient proof that the criteria for having 'right to exist' is possibly as fickle as the fashion industry.

Dangling the 'Israel's right to exist' carrot could be seen as a red herring, forgetting the vegetable doesn't typically inhabit the ocean. If by focusing on Israel, we divert attention from the suffering of the Palestinians, it's like acknowledging the genius of Mozart, yet ignoring Salieri's potential envy at the same time.

Do all countries have an inherent 'right to exist'? This is like asking if every human has a right to be on Earth. Technically, yes, since we are born here (unless you have Martians hiding something). But practically, it entirely depends on which neighborhood you happen to live in and how good your country's leader is at 'Civilization' board game.

In short, a country's 'right to exist' seems to be a mash-up of global acceptance, ethical considerations, political prudence, and, let's be frank, how well you can play 'Risk' at a geopolitical level.

Unless some logic is applied to arrive at that conclusion, you couldn't classify it as a fallacy.

On to the actual claim, though. Rights, in this respect, can be viewed in two different ways. Rights can be viewed as inherent, something that a person or entity should have regardless of condition. Or they can be conditional, granted by a powerful entity like a government, conditioned on the entity being within their jurisdiction.

Going backwards, starting with the conditional one, there are international coalitions which have set rules for armed conflict, and Israel does maintain some rights to self defense under those laws. However, international law doesn't recognize a right for a nation to exist in perpetuity. Countries have their borders changed or cease to exist fairly frequently through a lot of different means, and international law enforcement doesn't automatically work to undo these changes.

The remaining option is that Israel has an inherent moral right to exist. The answer to this is subjective, you could make a case either way. But, the people who say Israel had the right to exist probably did not say the same about Zaire or East Germany with equal enthusiasm. Israel certainly does enjoy some special treatment due to its alliance with Western military forces and its importance to the Abrahamic religions.

Alleged Certainty (also known as assuming the conclusion)
Description: Asserting a conclusion without evidence or premises through a statement that makes the conclusion appear certain when, in fact, it is not.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Alleged-Certainty

The statement "Israel has the right to exist." is an assertion that is made without defining what rights are. Accepting the statement as valid relies on drawing a conclusion without presenting premises about what rights are and under what circumstances nations have the right to exist.
Anyone who accepts that "stand alone" statement as true is doing so without going through the process of establishing the validity of the conclusion. They are assuming the conclusion.
If tomorrow I decide to create a nation called "XYZ" and I state that the nation XYZ has the right to exist within the exact current borders of the nation "ABC," then is the statement "XYZ has the right to exist." a valid statement? What is the accepted criterion for the territory that a nation is entitled to?