In a recent critique, Northwestern University law professor Steven Lubet has taken aim at journalist Mehdi Hasan's widely circulated video argument that Israel possesses no legitimate right to exist. Lubet, an emeritus professor at the Pritzker School of Law, argues that Hasan's reasoning is not only factually flawed but carries dangerous implications for international stability and the safety of millions.
Deconstructing the 'Where' Argument
Hasan's first contention questions Israel's right to exist by pointing to its undefined borders. Lubet counters that this argument ignores historical reality. He notes that five Arab nations invaded the newly declared state of Israel in 1948, preventing the establishment of formal borders through armistice agreements that created only temporary demarcation lines. Furthermore, Lubet argues that unsettled borders are not unique to Israel, citing the line of control in Kashmir between India and Pakistan and ongoing disputes between India and China. He suggests this line of questioning serves to camouflage a more fundamental rejection of Israel's legitimacy anywhere.
The Flawed 'States Have No Rights' Premise
Hasan's second pillar asserts that only people, not states, possess inherent rights. Lubet dismantles this by pointing to the foundation of international law, which is built upon state sovereignty. He references the 1947 United Nations resolution that legally established Israel and questions how international diplomacy, treaty enforcement, or the right to self-defense under the UN Charter could function if states held no rights. While acknowledging states can change—like the dissolution of the Soviet Union or Yugoslavia—Lubet highlights Hasan's selective omission of states forcibly dismantled through aggression, such as Poland in 1939 or Kuwait in 1990.
Lubet accuses Hasan of applying his "no right to exist" principle exclusively to Israel, creating a glaring double standard. He challenges Hasan to apply the same logic to condemn Vladimir Putin's claims that Ukraine is not a real country or to defend Taiwan's right to resist absorption by China, suggesting such consistency is absent.
The Palestinian Statehood 'Showstopper'
Hasan's final point poses a rhetorical question: if Israel has a right to exist, does Palestine? Lubet provides a direct affirmative answer, noting that a two-state solution has long been official U.S. policy and is supported by a majority of Americans and American Jews. He adds a longer historical context, pointing to Palestinian rejections of statehood proposals in 1947 and 2000.
Lubet argues that a future Palestinian state would ironically fail Hasan's own first two tests—lacking defined borders and, under his logic, a right to exist—proving those criteria were devised solely to target Israel. He concludes that such arguments against Israel's fundamental legitimacy, far from advancing peace, play into the hands of political figures who reject Palestinian statehood, like former President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Broader Political Context
The debate occurs amid shifting U.S. political dynamics regarding Israel. A recent Pew survey indicates over 60% of Americans now hold an unfavorable view of Israel, reflecting growing public skepticism. This sentiment has sparked internal Democratic Party tensions, with figures like Senator John Fetterman condemning his party's growing criticism of the Israeli government.
Lubet acknowledges severe criticisms of the Netanyahu government's policies in Gaza and the West Bank are valid. However, he maintains that challenging the state's very right to exist makes mutual recognition and political compromise virtually impossible, ultimately harming prospects for peace and stability in a region already facing heightened tensions, such as the U.S. Navy's planned enforcement in the Strait of Hormuz.
