I appreciate what the author is trying to do here but her argument seems to hinge solely on moralistic appeals for justice which, while while rhetorically impressive, fail in practice to persuade a hostile audience that Israel has in fact no right to exist. My 12th grade English education tells me that in order to persuade an antagonistic audience of the correctness of your position, you should rely more on logos (facts and logic) than pathos (appeals to emotion). For this reason I prefer the argument that Ali Abunimah makes from time to time in response to Israel's so-called "right to exist". I have a copy of The Battle for Justice in Palestine on hand so I'll just paraphrase his reasoning. If the plaintiff has a right, he must of necessity have a means to vindicate and maintain it, and a remedy if he is injured in the exercise or enjoyment of it, and, indeed it is a vain thing to imagine a right without a remedy; for want of right and want of remedy are reciprocal. —Lord Chief Justice Holt, Ashby vs. White, 1703 How can Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state be violated? Simply put, if the Palestinian population of Israel increases to such an extent that it threatens Israel's maintenance of ethnoreligious privilege for its Jewish population, then its right to exist as a Jewish state is being violated. What is the remedy for this violation; what recourse does Israel have? Well, remedy that would create the least amount of bloodshed is to deprive Palestinians in Israel of their political power i.e. their voting rights. Basically establish a more severe version of the apartheid system that currently exists. Another option would be to forcibly expel the "excess" Palestinians to their ghettos in the West Bank and Gaza. Both options are heinous, monstrous crimes, but they're the only things Israel can do if it wants to maintain its Jewish character. Therefore, we can now see that Israel's "right" isn't really a "right" at all. Because the remedy for the violation of a right must be "proper", as Abunimah explains: In the formulation of the eighteenth-century jurist William Blackstone, “It is a settled and invariable principle in the laws of England, that every right when with-held must have a remedy, and every injury its proper redress.” His insertion of the word proper reminds us that a remedy must be lawful and equitable. If my neighbor cuts down my tree, a proper remedy might include paying damages to me, replacing the tree, and perhaps some restraining order to prevent him from felling other trees. It would not be a proper remedy for me to vengefully cut down my neighbor’s trees, demolish his house, or kill his children. Israel's response to a natural increase in Palestinian population is totally disproportional. And yet, its foundational law necessitates that it must respond that way. To quote Abunimah one last time: Israel’s “right to exist as a Jewish state” is one with no proper legal or moral remedy and one whose enforcement necessitates perpetuating terrible wrongs. Therefore it is no right at all. http://www.amazon.com/The-Battle-Justice-Palestine-Abunimah/dp/1608463249