Israel: A Right to Live

The concept of Israel's right to live refers to the claim that Israel's continued existence as a sovereign Jewish state realizes the Jewish people's right to national self-determination in their historic homeland. ADL presents that right as compatible with democratic government and Palestinian self-determination, while treating Israel as a safeguard against the vulnerabilities of Jewish statelessness.[1] Kobi Michael distinguishes acknowledging Israel's existence from recognizing it as the Jewish people's nation-state, which he describes as recognition of Jewish national self-determination.[2]

These arguments operate on several levels: historical attachment and continuity; claims about international recognition; the moral significance of refuge after persecution; and the relationship between Jewish and Palestinian national rights. Debate often turns on whether recognizing Israel's sovereign existence also requires recognizing its specifically Jewish national character.

The case for Israel's right to exist is grounded, in large part, in the depth and continuity of Jewish ties to the land. In its advocacy-oriented account, the Jewish Virtual Library says those ties extend more than 3,700 years. It lists the Balfour Declaration, the League of Nations Mandate, the 1947 UN General Assembly partition resolution, Israel's admission to the UN in 1949, and recognition by most other states among the elements of what it calls Israel's international “birth certificate.”[3]

Israel's Declaration of Independence, issued in Tel Aviv on May 14, 1948, presents the Jewish people's claim to statehood through their historical attachment to Eretz-Israel, the Zionist movement, and successive acts of international recognition.[4] The declaration describes this claim as a natural right to determine their own fate, like other nations, in a sovereign state.[4] It notes that the First Zionist Congress in 1897 proclaimed the right to national rebirth in the Jewish people's own country, and that the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and the League of Nations Mandate recognized and reaffirmed that right.[4] The 1947 UN General Assembly resolution calling for the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz-Israel is cited in the declaration as a further affirmation of the Jewish people's natural and historic right.[4]

INSS analyst Kobi Michael distinguishes between acknowledging Israel's existence and recognizing it as the Jewish people's nation-state. He argues that the latter constitutes recognition of Jewish national self-determination — not merely acceptance that a state called Israel exists — and identifies the British Mandate and UN General Assembly Resolution 181 of November 29, 1947, as instances of such international recognition.[2]

Israel's Declaration of Independence appealed to international legitimacy on multiple grounds. It stated that the People's Council declared the establishment of the State of Israel on the strength of the 1947 UN resolution and the Jewish people's natural and historic right.[4] The declaration pledged cooperation with UN agencies in implementing the resolution and appealed to the UN to admit Israel to the international community.[4]

Alongside its founding as a Jewish state, the declaration committed the new state to being open to Jewish immigration and the Ingathering of the Exiles, and promised development for the benefit of all inhabitants — equality of social and political rights regardless of religion, race, or sex; freedom of religion, conscience, language, education, and culture; and protection of holy places.[4] It explicitly appealed to Arab inhabitants to participate in building the state on the basis of full and equal citizenship and representation.[4]

Central to arguments for Israel's right to exist is the centuries-long experience of Jewish vulnerability in the absence of a state. The Anti-Defamation League frames Jewish self-determination as including the right to live in “a Jewish, democratic state in their ancient homeland, Israel,” connecting that case directly to the history of Jewish statelessness and persecution.[1] It names Tsarist pogroms, the Holocaust, the expulsion of Jews from Arab lands, and anti-Jewish restrictions in the Soviet Union among the experiences that led Israel's founders to regard establishing a state in the Jewish people's historic homeland as an essential safeguard against persecution.[1]

Writing in the Evening Standard on October 24, 2001, and responding to a column that questioned Israel's very right to exist, Rabbi Jonathan Sacks argued that Jews had been persecuted in Christian Europe for a thousand years — from massacres of Jewish communities in northern France and Germany during the First Crusade to the Holocaust — and had lacked a defensible homeland where they could live securely.[5] He noted that two thirds of Europe's Jews were murdered in the Holocaust, including one and a half million children.[5] Sacks connected this history directly to the 1947 United Nations vote and concluded: “All it asks is the right to exist without fear and the constant threat of terror.”[5]

An opinion article in Jewish News reports that the Italian Jewish writer and Holocaust survivor Primo Levi spoke in Turin on May 31, 1967, during the crisis preceding the June war, and said that Israel “must survive” and “has the right to live.” The article grounds his position in the experience of European Jews who had survived persecution and the Holocaust.[6]

Some advocates frame Israel's right to exist as compatible with, rather than opposed to, Palestinian aspirations. ADL states that Jewish self-determination does not negate the Palestinians' right to a viable state in part of the same land, and calls for a negotiated two-state solution providing security, self-determination, and dignity for both peoples.[1] Kobi Michael similarly grounds his analysis in a universal principle: “The right to self-determination is a natural right possessed by all nations.”[2]

Rabbi Sacks, while making a forceful case for Israel's right to exist, also acknowledged Palestinian suffering and wrote that “Israel is here to stay. So are the Palestinians.”[5] He pointed to Israel's free press, independent judiciary, and democratic character as part of his case for defending the state's right to exist. He also cited the Declaration of Independence's founding-day offer of peace and good-neighborliness as evidence that the state was not founded in a spirit of aggression.[5]

An INSS analysis of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations traces the evolution of the recognition question over time. Earlier agreements — with Egypt and Jordan and in the Oslo process — were based on recognition of Israel's sovereign existence and its right to live in security and peace within agreed borders.[7] The demand that Palestinians recognize Israel specifically as the Jewish people's nation-state emerged later: the INSS analysis identifies 2003, in the Sharon government's response to the Bush administration's Roadmap, as the first sign of that policy shift.[7]

During subsequent negotiations, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu sought recognition of Israel as the Jewish people's nation-state alongside security arrangements, while Palestinians wanted territorial division to head the agenda.[7] The demand implicated competing historical narratives and core outstanding issues including refugees, Jerusalem, and sovereignty.[7] Netanyahu described recognition as “the most significant obstacle to peace remaining,” though the INSS analysis also noted substantial gaps between the parties on other core issues.[7]

The same Jewish News opinion article describes Levi's response to Israel's 1982 Lebanon war. It reports that he joined protests calling for Israel's withdrawal and for Prime Minister Menachem Begin's resignation, and quotes him saying, “I retain a close sentimental tie with Israel,” but “not with this Israel.” The article presents this as a distinction between criticism of government policy and his foundational commitment to Israel's continued existence.[6]