Translation of Vince Dhimos’ Spanish-language answer to the question: Does the state of Israel have the right to exist? Why or why not?
(link to Spanish-language original: https://es.quora.com/Tiene-derecho-a-existir-el-Estado-de-Israel-Por-qu%C3%A9-o-por-qu%C3%A9-no/answer/Vince-Dhimos)
BEGIN MY ANSWER (notes in [brackets] are my addenda after publication at Quora. The following is a redacted version of my answer):
The issue of whether Israel has the right to exist is generally falsely and slyly framed as the question of its right to be a nation-state.
Therefore, people who discuss this issue always present it as a nationality problem, but that is almost irrelevant in the real human rights context, which is invariably ignored. Specifically, what is ignored is the cold-blooded murder of human beings by the Zionist terrorist gangs, whose lives are portrayed as less than those of an animal. The rationale for this heartless view of the Palestinians is that they are Muslims and are therefore the enemy of civilization. This view dominates US right-wing politics today and is held unquestioningly among most Americans who consider themselves conservative Christians.
This is the main reason the right to life is ignored by Western commentators.
Meanwhile, the Zionists slyly remind us that Palestine is not a distinct identity and that the Palestinians have never had a nation of their own, but that Israel had been a nation millennia ago. Therefore, if supposedly follows that the Arabs who had occupied Palestine for millennia prior to the arrival of the Zionists from Europe and elsewhere simply had to go. Immediately. Because they were trespassers on land that they mistakenly thought was theirs. And the methods used to expel them were, of course, unimportant. This Zionist mentality, fully supported by the majority of US Evangelicals, set the stage for the gruesome murder of thousands of the people unfortunate enough to have been born in the territory claimed by the Zionists and their allies in Britain and the US in the decades leading up to the UN declaration of Israel as a state.
But the issue that is never raised is whether they are humans with the right to life, and that issue is cunningly masked by the argument purely concerning nationhood. And, of course, in the US, the issue is dominated by a very large population of Evangelicals, who consider themselves “Christian” Zionists. These folks make up the largest voting bloc in the US and have managed to capture the current president who grovels more submissively to Israel than any other president in US history, and is now flirting with a big war against Iran, just to please Israel. I have detailed the problem of this dangerous cult and its fatally flawed reading of the scriptures here:
The important question regarding Israel – the one that is ignored by all parties involved – is: did the Arabs who were living in Palestine at the beginning of the 20th century have the right to live? Or did the Zionists have the right to kill them? In this context, the question of their right to be a nation fades into the background. But it is very important if the Arabs had the right to live or if they had the right to stay in the land where they lived when the Zionists and the British came and forced them to leave at gun point. This puts the anger of the Palestinians in a different light.
Since the question mentions "rights," the important thing is the way the Zionists forced the Arabs to leave. Here is a description of how they respected the "rights" of the Arabs who lived in this area:
Prologue of the book "Violence and terror of the Zionists, before and after the State of Israel", Editorial Canaan
"The horror of Jewish terrorism ..." Golda Meir
On 9 April, 69 years will have passed since the entry of the hordes of Zionist Khazars in Palestine and of the massacres and crimes against humanity committed against the Palestinian populations. There were no war crimes because there was no war. These were undoubtedly imprescriptible crimes against humanity that still await justice and condemnation of their perpetrators: Menahem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir and their murderous gangs.
The great Colombian writer Gabriel García Márquez, in a memorable letter, awarded Menahem Begin and his general Arik Sharon with the "Nobel Prize for Death," for their responsibility in the massacres in the Palestinian neighbourhoods of Sabra and Shatila, in the Lebanese capital Beirut in 1982. [https://imemc.org/article/66121/]
Dr. Teresa Aranguren,  in an enlightening book, recounts the events that took place, and I want to extract from her book only a few moving paragraphs:
"On April 9, 1948, the armed groups Irgun and Stern (whose leaders included two future prime ministers of Israel, Menahem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir) carried out the massacre of the inhabitants of Deir Yassin. [https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/MAGAZINE-testimonies-from-the-censored-massacre-at-deir-yassin-1.5494094 Testimonies From the Censored Deir Yassin Massacre: 'They Piled Bodies and Burned Them'
A young fellow tied to a tree and set on fire. A woman and an old man shot in back. Girls lined up against a wall and shot with a submachine gun. The testimonies collected by filmmaker Neta Shoshani about the massacre in Deir Yassin are difficult to process even 70 years after the fact]
The delegate of the Red Cross in the area, Jacques de Reynier, was the first person to arrive at the place while the Irgun militias were still present: "Among the troops there were some very young people, almost adolescents, all in military clothing and helmets, men and women armed to the teeth with pistols, machine guns, grenades and also big knives, most of them still bloodied. A very beautiful young woman showed me her blood still dripping like a trophy [from her knife]...
I made my way between them and entered a house. The first room was dark with everything in disarray but nobody could be seen. In the next room I found, under the furniture and the busted mattresses, several corpses aIready cold.
The cleansing operation had been done first with machine guns, then with grenades and finally with the long knives, without any worries that it would be discovered. The same scene we found in the next room but as I was about to leave I heard what I thought was a sigh.
I removed the corpses until I touched a small foot that was still warm. She was a ten-year-old girl, badly injured by a grenade but still alive. I picked her up and one of the officers tried to block me at the door, I pushed him and left with my precious body ...
We check the other houses and in all of them we find the same spooky scene. We only found two other people alive, two women, one of them an old woman huddled in the kitchen, she had been hiding there for hours ...
The village had four hundred inhabitants, some fifty managed to flee, three had survived, the rest had been thoroughly massacred, following the orders of their chiefs as they are admirably disciplined troops ... "
Jacques de Reynier gives the figure of 347 dead in the killing of Deir Yassin; other sources speak of 250. In any case, it is not about the number of victims – because in those months of 1948 there were similar massacres in many other villages of Palestine – but about the echo that the killing had, the panic movement it provoked, which made Deir Yassin one of the keys to the exodus of the Palestinian peasants.
[In my debates with Israelis and Zionits at Quora, I keep encountering the argument that the Arabs left of their own free will and that the Zionists are not responsible for this. They never mention these massacres, of course. Vince]
In fact it became one of the elements of the military strategy to achieve the "spontaneous" evacuation of the Arab population of rural Palestine. A pattern that was repeated with assiduity was to surround the villages and broadcast through speakers a messages to its inhabitants: Leave the village or you will get the Deir Yassin treatment.
Below is a link to a video that will help you understand how the first Zionists got their "rights" to the land:
In view of the above, it seems that when the Israelis say they have a right to this land, what they really mean is that the Arabs have no rights, not even the right to life, and that the Israelis have the right to kill them with impunity.
Then let's forget about the question you asked at Quora, and ask the important question:
If the Israelis have a right to this land, does this not imply that the Arabs have no right, not even the right to live?