Israel’s Right to Exist and Trump’s Iran Gamble

Michel Benchimol

The double standard that singles out Israel, the religious core of Arab rejectionism, and whether Iran will become Trump’s Waterloo—with Israel as the price.

The question “Does Israel have a right to exist?” remains one of the most persistent and revealing in modern discourse.

It exposes a double standard: no other established nation faces routine demands to justify its very existence as a precondition for legitimacy. 

States face criticism, sanctions, and isolation for their actions—but their fundamental right to continue as sovereign entities is rarely put on trial. Israel is the glaring exception.

This persistence cannot be explained by territorial disputes alone. A deeper examination reveals that, for significant currents within the Arab and Muslim world—particularly those shaped by Islamic ideology—the opposition to Israel is not primarily about borders, settlements, or land. It is framed as a religious imperative rooted in Islamic doctrine, history, and eschatology that views Jewish sovereignty in the historic Land of Israel as an abomination, with explicit calls in foundational texts and modern interpretations for the subjugation or elimination of Jews.

At the same time, Donald Trump’s second term has revealed a surprising evolution in the Middle East. The man who once called foreign intervention “foolish” has become a hard-edged power broker focused on Israel, Iran, and deal-making.

His strategy is transactional, not ideological: punish Iran, reinforce Israel, reward compliant Arab partners, and package that as peace through strength.

But the question haunting Washington and Jerusalem is no longer whether Trump will dominate the region. It’s whether Iran will become his Waterloo—and whether Israel will be the price he pays to avoid it.

This article examines the double standard applied to Israel, the religious core of Arab rejectionism, Trump’s transformation into a conventional politician, and the risks of his Iran gamble.

It argues that conflicts rooted in mutual denial do not end through argument. They end, if at all, through recognition—that both sides are permanent. Trump’s gamble tests whether that recognition can be forged through leverage, normalization, and a deal that prioritizes stability over moral purity.

The Global Baseline: States Born in Conflict

The international order does not demand moral perfection for statehood. It rests on recognition, effective control, and endurance.

• The United States expanded via conquest and Native displacement.
• Canada and Australia emerged from colonial settlement marginalizing Indigenous peoples.
• India and Pakistan were born in the carnage of Partition.
• Turkey followed mass killings and population exchanges, including the Armenian Genocide.
• China’s modern form arose from civil war and continues policies toward Tibet, Uyghurs, and others.

None of these trigger sustained global campaigns questioning their right to exist. Historical sins do not retroactively dissolve statehood. Israel’s founding in 1948 fits this pattern—yet it alone is singled out.

Israel’s Founding and the Religious Rejection

Israel was established after the Holocaust, following the 1947 UN partition plan for two states: one Jewish, one Arab. Jewish leaders accepted it despite its limitations.

Arab states rejected it and immediately launched a war of annihilation to prevent any Jewish state.

This was not framed merely as a territorial grievance.

From the outset, much of the opposition invoked Islamic religious concepts. The land (referred to as waqf—Islamic endowment) was seen as eternally Muslim territory.

Jewish self-rule contradicted classical Islamic jurisprudence on dhimmi status, where Jews and Christians were tolerated only as subordinate communities under Muslim rule, paying the jizya tax and accepting humiliation. Sovereignty reversed this divinely ordained hierarchy.

The Religious Core: Islamic Doctrine and Anti-Jewish Sentiment

Unlike most territorial conflicts, the Israeli-Palestinian dispute has been heavily infused with religious ideology that transcends borders. Key elements from Islamic sources have been repeatedly invoked by opponents:

Quranic and Hadith References

The Quran contains verses depicting conflict with Jewish tribes in Medina, accusing them of treachery, and prescribing harsh punishments. Certain Hadiths (sayings attributed to Muhammad) are more explicit, including the apocalyptic prophecy in Sahih Muslim (Book 41, Hadith 6985): that the Day of Judgment will not come until Muslims fight and kill Jews, with Jews hiding behind rocks and trees that will call out to Muslims to kill them.

These texts are not obscure; they appear in sermons, school curricula, and official rhetoric across parts of the Muslim world.

Historical Precedent

Under Islamic rule, Jews faced periodic pogroms, forced conversions, and massacres (e.g., in Granada 1066, Fez 1033, or later in various Arab countries). The 20th-century exodus of nearly a million Jews from Arab and Muslim lands—driven by violence, property seizures, and persecution after 1948—was not purely nationalist but carried religious undertones of restoring Islamic dominance.

Modern Islamist Movements

• Hamas Charter (1988): Explicitly cites the Hadith calling for killing Jews and frames the struggle as a religious war against Jews, not just Israelis. It rejects any permanent peace and calls for Israel’s destruction as a religious duty. (Later revisions softened the language for PR but retained the core goals.)
• Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and Iran’s regime: Routinely invoke similar religious framing: Israel as the “Little Satan,” Jews as inherently treacherous, and jihad against them as a path to salvation.
• This rejectionism echoes the Khartoum Resolution (“no peace, no recognition, no negotiations”) and the PLO’s original charter, but Islamist groups add explicit theological justification.

The conflict is thus portrayed by these actors not as negotiable territory but as a cosmic struggle. Concessions on land (e.g., Sinai, Gaza withdrawal) have not produced peace because the objection is to Jewish existence and self-determination on what is viewed as Islamic land.

Maps in Palestinian textbooks and official media often erase Israel entirely. Polls from Pew and others consistently show high levels of antisemitic attitudes in many Muslim-majority countries, far exceeding global averages, often blending religious and political elements.

This religious dimension distinguishes it from secular territorial disputes like those between India and Pakistan (post-Partition) or even intra-Arab conflicts. In Islamist ideology, compromise equates to betraying divine command.

Double Standards and Denial of Legitimacy

Criticism of Israeli policies is legitimate. No democracy is immune to scrutiny. But the leap to “Israel should not exist” is exceptional:

• Turkey faces no existential challenge over Kurds or Armenians.
• China over Tibet/Uyghurs.
• Pakistan over its bloody founding and treatment of minorities.
• Syria
• Cambodia
• Rwanda
• Sudan
• Ethiopia
• Etc……

Only Israel confronts a coalition that includes states, NGOs, and activists who treat its legitimacy as conditional. This often imports religious antisemitism (disguised as anti-Zionism) into Western discourse via alliances with Islamist groups. The UN and international forums disproportionately target Israel, reflecting bloc voting by Muslim-majority nations.

Palestinian Rights Amid Rejectionism

Palestinians undeniably deserve dignity, self-determination, and an end to statelessness. Their suffering—displacement in 1948/1967, ongoing hardships—is real. However, leadership failures, corruption, rejection of offers (Camp David 2000, etc.), and embrace of religious maximalism (“from the river to the sea”) have perpetuated the cycle.

A cause that teaches children martyrdom and elimination of Jews as religious virtue leaves little space for coexistence. Moderate Muslim voices exist—those who interpret texts contextually or prioritize peace—but they are often marginalized. Dominant rejectionist currents, funded and amplified by Iran, Qatar, and others, prioritize religious victory over pragmatic state-building.

From Outsider to Power Broker: Trump’s Transformation

Donald Trump’s second term has revealed a surprising evolution. The man who once called foreign intervention “foolish” and vowed to end “forever wars” has become a hard-edged power broker in the region’s most volatile theatre. His Middle East policy is not ideological—it’s transactional. It prizes leverage, deals, and visible victories over moral consistency or long-term strategic doctrine.

That shift is visible in every move:

• Direct pressure on Iran
• Close coordination with Israel
• Courtship of Arab states like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Egypt, Turkey, and Gulf partners

Trump’s January 2026 Gaza plan, with a Board of Peace and transitional governance model, signaled a new phase: statecraft packaged as personal triumph.

But the core of his strategy remains unchanged from his first term: punish Iran, reinforce Israel, and reward Arab partners who comply. 

The difference is that he now operates with machinery, institutions, and foreign-policy architecture—making him more politically competent without becoming politically conventional.

Is He Becoming a Politician?

Yes, in the sense that he is behaving more like a seasoned officeholder who understands coalition management, messaging, and the value of tangible outcomes. But he is not becoming a normal politician in style: he still frames policy as personal victory, speaks in dominance terms, and treats diplomacy as a series of wins and losses. In other words, he is becoming more politically competent without becoming politically conventional.

The Middle East Read

The Middle East is where this evolution shows most clearly. Trump appears to see the region through a hard-edged lens: punish Iran, reinforce Israel, reward compliant Arab partners, and package that as peace through strength. Critics argue this sidelines Palestinians and turns diplomacy into a security-first arrangement dominated by U.S.-Israeli power and Gulf money.

Supporters argue it has produced real breakthroughs and a more stable regional order than the vague rhetoric of earlier administrations.

The Iran Trap: Waterloo or Victory?

Trump’s Iran policy is the true test of his transformation. He has pursued maximum pressure—sanctions, tariffs on countries trading with Iran, and repeated military threats.

In June 2025, the U.S. and Israel struck Iran’s nuclear facilities in the largest Western attack since 1979.

Iran retaliated with a missile strike on a U.S. air base in Qatar.

Then came the pivot. In April 2026, Trump announced a two-week ceasefire with Iran, framing it as a dramatic victory. Tehran has shown willingness to negotiate on uranium enrichment, but talks stall over U.S. demands to limit Iran’s missiles and proxies.

Critics call it a disaster. They argue that Trump is abandoning regime change, legitimizing the Iranian regime, and failing to achieve the doctrine Netanyahu vowed to destroy. Some analysts say Iran could become Trump’s Waterloo if escalation leads to sustained conflict, U.S. casualties, and a midterm disaster for Republicans.

The risk is that Trump’s signature tactic—construct a narrative, declare it true, and force the world to submit—doesn’t work when the adversary is a state with nuclear ambitions and proxy networks.

Israel’s Anxiety: Being Sidelined for a Deal

Israel is deeply alarmed. Trump’s pivot from regime change to talks has left Israeli analysts confused and disappointed. Netanyahu is sidelined in negotiations, and the U.S. is no longer fully aligned with Israel’s doctrine of regime change.

Trump even called Netanyahu “f***ing crazy” over Israel’s escalation in Lebanon and forced a ceasefire with Lebanon to protect the Iran talks. Tehran has suspended talks with the U.S. to protest Israel’s expanding offensive in Lebanon.

Israel’s ramped-up attacks on Hezbollah suggest how difficult it will be for the U.S. and Tehran to reach an agreement.

The risk is real: a deal could leave the Iranian regime intact and still threatening. That’s what Cruz, Wicker, and Pompeo say would be a grave error and a disaster if predicated on Iran’s good faith.

But Trump is not abandoning Israel’s core security. He’s offering normalization: demanding that countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Pakistan normalize with Israel as part of any Iran agreement. He’s recasting the Abraham Accords as a broader regional order.

Trump knows hawkish Republicans and pro-Israel groups are watching. He’s using normalization demands to ease their concerns. He still agrees with Netanyahu on preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, even if they have tactical disagreements.

For Israel, however, this feels like betrayal: the deal legitimizes the regime Netanyahu vowed to destroy.

The Double Standard Returns

Trump’s Middle East strategy reveals a double standard that echoes the debate over Israel’s right to exist.

States are judged not just by behaviour but by legitimacy. Israel is the exception: routinely required to justify its continued existence as a precondition for legitimacy.

No comparable standard is applied elsewhere:

• Turkey’s existence is not questioned despite its history.
• China’s legitimacy is not denied despite its policies.
• Pakistan is not considered illegitimate despite the violence of its founding.
• Russia’s statehood is not debated despite its imperial actions.
• Iraq
• Jordan

Only in Israel’s case does a significant body of opinion move from “this state acts unjustly” to “this state should not exist.” Trump’s deal-making may reinforce that pattern: Israel’s security is contingent on Trump’s political brand, not long-term doctrine.

Why This Matters

The Middle East is where Trump’s evolution shows most clearly.

He sees the region through a hard-edged lens: punish Iran, reinforce Israel, reward compliant Arab partners, and package that as peace through strength.

Critics argue this sidelines Palestinians and turns diplomacy into a security-first arrangement dominated by U.S.-Israeli power and Gulf money. Supporters argue it has produced real breakthroughs and a more stable regional order than vague rhetoric.

But the risk is clear: if the deal fails and Iran continues to threaten, Israel will feel he sacrificed its long-term security for a short-term deal. If the deal holds and includes Arab normalization, it could be a Trump win.

The Bottom Line

Trump is not throwing Israel under the bus in the sense of abandoning its security or nuclear threat prevention.

But he is risky: he’s willing to sacrifice Israel’s preferred outcome (regime change) to secure a deal that benefits his political brand and broader regional order.

For Israel, that feels like betrayal. For Trump, it’s a win. For the world, it’s a test of whether transactional diplomacy can produce lasting peace—or whether Iran will become his Waterloo, and Israel the price.

The proper question is not whether Israel has a right to exist. It exists. The more relevant question is how Israelis, Palestinians, and the U.S. can achieve security, dignity, and national self-determination without sacrificing one side’s legitimacy for another’s deal.

History demonstrates that conflicts rooted in mutual denial do not end through argument. They end, if at all, through recognition—that both sides are permanent.

Trump’s gamble tests whether that recognition can be forged through leverage, normalization, and a deal that prioritizes stability over moral purity.

The obstacle remains the persistent current within political Islam that views the killing or expulsion of Jews not as crime, but destiny. True resolution begins with rejecting genocidal religious mandates in favour of pragmatic coexistence.

---