[gronky_]

Stating that Israel doesn’t have a right to exist has been recognized to be an antisemitic statement by many prominent institutions.

It’s a radical statement that effectively denies the rights of millions of people to exist and is especially problematic given the historical context of the establishment of Israel.

The statement gets thrown around so much in certain circles that it’s gotten normalized. You’ve apparently lost sight of or never stopped to think what actually means, to the point where you’re providing it as an example of an innocent statement that got you banned for no reason. Taking this statement out of radical activist circles and into the real world won’t go well.

Take some time to educate yourself and reflect on what it actually means.

[impossiblefork]

But states don't have a right to exist. It's not a right a state can have.

The context of the establishment of Israel is also the mass expulsion of Palestinians, terrorism, the murder of British soldiers trying to keep peace, biological warfare with the poisoning of wells with typhus, etc.

[whamlastxmas]

Why is it ok to say Palestine doesn’t have a right to exist, but not to say Israel doesn’t have a right?

[mmooss]

What does that mean, 'a right to exist'? It sounds like emotional nonsense speak - we have the powerful words right and exist, and together they sound existential, for a person.

In international law afaict existing states have a right to exist - yes, almost circular. It's not endorsement of them as good or ok; it's recognizing reality and it's considered absolutely essential to maintain peace - otherwise everyone could attack almost anyone else, because if you're going to start deligitimizing states based on their bad actions, including in their formation, there's going to be a long list.

But beyond that, I don't even know what it means for state. Beyond any doubt, the humans in Israel and the occupied territories all have a right to exist.