“Say the Line!” How Israel’s ‘Right to Exist’ Shapes US Politics and Media

When New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani appeared on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert last month, the conversation started off lighthearted. But halfway through, Colbert pivoted sharply.

“Do you support Israel’s right to exist?” he asked, almost casually.

Mamdani responded carefully. He affirmed that every country has a right to exist, but only within the bounds of international law. It was a measured answer. Still, backlash came swiftly.

Mainstream outlets accused Mamdani of antisemitism. Pro-Israel groups called his response dangerous. The moment illustrated a deeper truth: this question isn’t neutral. It’s a political weapon. One designed to draw lines between “acceptable” and “radical,” between electable and unelectable.

But why does a city politician’s opinion on a foreign country’s legitimacy provoke such outrage? Why is this question asked repeatedly, but only about Israel?

Where Did This Phrase Come From?

The phrase “Israel’s right to exist” didn’t arise in a vacuum. It emerged as a political response to Arab and Palestinian rejection of Israel’s settler-colonial project in the mid-20th century.

In the wake of Israel’s founding in 1948, through the mass displacement of over 750,000 Palestinians, the phrase became part of diplomatic discourse. By the 1970s, Israel began demanding formal recognition from Arab states. Western powers, especially the US, adopted the phrase to shift the conversation away from Palestinian rights toward Israeli security.

But no other country is routinely discussed in these terms. As Palestinian-American writer Ali Abunimah explains:

“It starts by accepting the idea that Israel, uniquely, has a ‘right to exist’ as a state. No other state claims this right. It is peoples who have a right to self-determination.”

The legal distortion is clear. International law recognizes the right of peoples, not regimes, to self-determination. But by framing Israel as a state with a unique existential right, US discourse erases Palestinian history and grievances.

A Media Machine that Frames, Filters, and Polices

In US media and politics, the phrase has evolved into an ideological litmus test. Support for Israel’s “right to exist” has become shorthand for political credibility.

Abunimah argues that the media plays a central role in shaping this dynamic:

“The US media and political system operate from the starting point that Israeli-Jewish settler-colonial claims are legitimate, while Palestinian rights are conditional or nonexistent.”

Journalists rarely ask candidates about Palestine’s right ti exist, about Palestinians’ right to live freely, return to their homes, or resist occupation. Instead, they ask if candidates “support Israel’s right to exist”, a question not meant to invite debate, but to shut it down.

“It’s a form of ideological policing,” Abunimah says. “Anyone questioning Zionism or supporting Palestinian liberation risks professional exile or character assassination. Of course this is not journalism, it’s propaganda.”

The Donors, the Elites, and the Fear

Why does this framing persist? Stanley Cohen, a Jewish-American human rights attorney, points to systemic pressure from elites and donors.

“AIPAC and ADL and other Zionist organizations have proven themselves incredibly powerful,” Cohen says. “If you take a righteous, real, and honest position and talk about Israeli war crimes and genocide, you’re not going to win office.”

He calls this a form of political gatekeeping. Candidates often self-censor, fearing accusations of antisemitism or losing donor support.

“Liberals say, ‘I won’t offend anyone, and then I’ll be righteous once I’m in office.’ But when they get into office, they worry about reelection,” Cohen explains. “They get seduced by the power equation.”

Even left-leaning politicians avoid direct criticism of Israel. The cost is too high. So the phrase “Israel’s right to exist” becomes a shield, one that protects Israel from scrutiny, even as it wages genocide against a captive population in Gaza.

What Does ‘Right to Exist’ Really Mean?

The phrase sounds simple, but legally, it’s meaningless. No state has a right to exist at the expense of another people. Cohen compares it to the social contract:

“Yes, states have a right to exist, but none at the expense of others… Just as Germany lost that right when it became a genocidal regime, Israel, from my perspective, under international law, has lost the right to exist as a state that self-determines by destroying others.”

Cohen traces this condition back over a century, to the early Zionist colonization of Palestine.

“We’re going back 100 years… Before it found its way from Poland,” he says. “From day one, Israel has been so insinuated with violence, land theft, and occupation that regime change alone won’t fix it. What we need is a one-state solution; based on full equality, no borders, and Quds as the capital.”

For Cohen, even discussing “Israel’s right to exist” is political theatre:

“It’s just a chant. A silly collection of verbiage. Does the US have a right to exist? Does Cuba? Why is Israel uniquely protected?”

The Turning Point

Cohen believes the phrase became a political weapon during the backlash against the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement.

“BDS was turned into this beast; ‘Let’s kill the Jews’… They said it threatens Israel’s right to exist. And from there, it snowballed.”

He points out how critics of Israeli policies were labeled as extremists or antisemites:

“Now, if you accuse Israel of genocide, you’re not seeking justice; you’re attacking its right to exist.”

This rhetorical move silences even peaceful dissent. Resistance itself, whether legal, rhetorical, or armed, is rebranded as an existential threat.

Cracks in the Narrative

Despite the dominance of this framing in elite circles, public opinion is shifting.

Abunimah sees this clearly:

“People are starting to see the truth, thanks to independent media and social media. Recent polls show Israel is viewed more negatively than ever, including in the US.”

Younger Americans, people of color, and even many young Jews are questioning the mythology surrounding Israel. For them, the phrase “right to exist” no longer carries moral weight.

“There are tens of millions of Americans,” Cohen says, “especially young people, who are not intimidated anymore. They say, ‘Israel does not have a right to exist, not as it exists now.’”

The Price of Truth and the Power of Speaking It

Those who break the silence, activists, journalists, politicians, pay a steep price. But they’re not alone.

“We are already breaking it,” Abunimah insists. “It takes courage, solidarity, and a public willing to confront ugly truths.”

And the truth is becoming harder to suppress. The genocide in Gaza has shattered the illusions many Americans once held about Israel. Graphic footage, eyewitness testimonies, and social media campaigns have pierced through traditional media filters.

“Many are shocked not just by the facts,” Abunimah says, “but by how much has been hidden from them.”

Even Cohen, once a regular on cable news, now finds that honest debate is nearly impossible:

“There are enough anti-Zionist Jews, enough people with knowledge. But they’re excluded. Because a real debate would challenge power.”

For decades, “Israel’s right to exist” served as a gatekeeper phrase designed to marginalize dissent and shield Israel from accountability. But the power of that phrase is beginning to wane.

Cohen sees the shift as irreversible:

“The winds of change are occurring,” he says. “The old language no longer reflects the feelings of tens, perhaps hundreds, of millions of Americans.”

The challenge now is to move beyond slogans and toward honest conversations about justice, law, and history.

The question is no longer whether Israel has a right to exist. It’s whether Palestinians have a right to live.