Talk:Right to exist

Article improvement—BESTSOURCES?

This article is read about 3000 times per month and the introduction is a sophomoric mess. Starting a discussion here to identify WP:BESTSOURCES for improving the article. إيان (talk) 21:03, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

On the contrary, I find it quite erudite. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 13:45, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2026

Change the name of the header with the title "Basque nation" to "Basque Country", as it is a more commonly used term. Change "Israel/Palestine" to "Israel and Palestine" because using a slash is informal HerrHeulsuse (talk) 03:39, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

 Done jolielover♥talk 14:20, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Pappé + el-Zayyat

I think the paragraph on Pappé and the 1948 Bernadotte proposals should be removed and the paragraph on el-Zayyat reworded. Regarding the Pappé paragraph, GimpyBee had already proposed this in 2013, without having access to Pappé’s text. The text is as follows (p. 149):

In Bernadotte’s vision there was no room for an independent Israel, only a tortuous recognition of its existence. This part of the [first Bernadotte] proposal irritated the Israelis more than, while at the same time the very minor reference to Israel's right to exist was pointed out by the Arabs as one of their main reasons for objecting to the plan. The count later tried to assuage the Israeli annoyance by pointing out that the union ipso facto meant the creation of a Jewish state and that he had used the term 'member-states' in order to placate Arab sensibilities. It seems, however, that Bernadotte intentionally obscured the Jewish political entity in his plan. [...] In any event, the mediator amended this in his second proposal with an explicit recognition of the right of Israel to exist.

Now, first, our paragraph says that according to Pappé, "Arab recognition of Israel's right to exist was part of Bernadotte's first 1948 peace plan". This is an understandable, but clearly incorrect, reading of Pappé’s sentence about the "tortuous recognition of its existence", see the following two sentences. Rather, Pappé interprets Bernadotte's use of the plural "member-states" as a "very minor reference to Israel's right to exist"; this was Bernadotte's "tortuous recognition". In other words, he is describing what he considers to have been the diplomatic implication of the proposal's wording.

Second, Pappé characterises the statement speaking explicitly about Israel in Bernadotte’s second proposal ("A Jewish State called Israel exists in Palestine and there are no sound reasons for assuming that it will not continue to do so") as "an explicit recognition of the right of Israel to exist". Here again, however, this not a description of Bernadotte's actual text, but Pappe's interpretation of the diplomatic significance of the fact that Bernadotte named Israel explicitly in the second proposal.

Our text turns Pappé's interpretation of the diplomatic implications of the two wordings into the different claim that Arab recognition of Israel's right to exist was itself part of the peace plans. This should at least be corrected (and I am not sure how) but imho the whole Pappé passage ist misleading enough that it should be removed altogether; Pappé's wording nothwithstanding, the passage is at most tangentially relevant to the question of Israel's legitimacy.

One more brief point, on el-Zayyat: I do not think the current wording makes sufficiently clear what was stated in 1949 and what was stated in 1967. The Egyptian–Israeli Armistice Agreement did not refer to an Israeli right to exist. A clearer and chronologically more accurate wording would be as follows (note that I add a link to the actual report on el-Zayyat's interview):

In September 1967, the Arab leaders adopted a hardline “three nos” position in the Khartoum Resolution: no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, and no negotiations with Israel. In November 1967, Egyptian government spokesman Mohammed H. el-Zayyat argued that the 1949 Egyptian–Israeli Armistice Agreement had already implicitly guaranteed Israel's right to exist. Pointing out that Egypt had never repudiated it, he nevertheless distinguished this acknowledgment from formal recognition of Israel. In the same month, Egypt accepted UN Security Council Resolution 242, which, according to data scientist Anne Alexander, also implied acceptance of Israel’s right to exist.

The attribution to Alexander is necessary, as the right to secure borders is actually something different from Israel's right to exist; cf. Burchill 2020, p. 55: "A state’s “right to exist” should not be confused with its people’s “right to live in peace within secure and recognised boundaries,” the wording of United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 with similar phrasing appearing in UNSC Resolution 338 and elsewhere. This right exists for all peoples regardless of their geographic location: for Israelis and Palestinians equally. Not for states."

DaWalda (talk) 10:58, 20 July 2026 (UTC)