What does it mean to say a state has a right to exist?

[Beastly Boy]

2. The logic advanced in the article is absurd, and the article itself is a useless exercise in academic self-gratification

Invoking the right to exist by any state is merely a pushback against any denials of the de-facto existence of that state. It is self-evident by the virtue of a state having a territory, a minimally stable government, and the means to insure possession of both. There are no further requirements .

A claim by a state to a right to exist, therefore, is not a legal concept. It is a warning to anyone who denies that right, and a reminder that there are consequences to their denials.

In a quick devaluation of this universal maxim into singling Israel out, the author's proposition, "If Israel is facing a challenge to its very ‘right to exist’ from its enemies, then criticism of Israel’s military actions must remain muted and qualified" is a strawman argument. No, criticism of Israel's military actions in self-defense is irrelevant to either a cause or an underlying consequence of Israel's military actions. It may only have some validity (not in principle but in detail) as to the methods used in Israel's defense of its right.

Only these methods, with references to underlying legal bases, are legitimate targets for criticism. By no means can these details be used to undermine the right of self-defense itself. And in any of these attempts to criticize, overlooking the causes and the extent of a threat that prompted the invocation of this maxim makes these attempts suspect from the outset.