One of the interesting things about being outside of the political power system is you can more readily zoom out and identify the rhetorical artifices used by all sides to frame a narrative.
Most people, in their correctly derisive replies to this, nevertheless are missing the bigger logical picture.
When someone asks if x has "a right to exist?", the first response should be: "Define 'right'."
You can tell the person interviewing Carlson has almost certainly never thought about this concept in any meaningful, deep way. Most people have not.
"Does x state have a right to exist?" is presented as a simple binary: The answer should be yes/no.
What's smuggled into the question are a host of presumptions, the first of which is a positive + legal view of "right".
The issue is, there are varying definitions of "rights", depending on your perspective: Negative rights, positive rights, legal rights, natural rights, etc.
From a negative + natural rights perspective, the question itself is illogical; states do not have "rights" at all, only human beings have rights (a moral dimension that only applies to an individual, not an abstract collective).
So from this perspective, the answer to "does x state have a right to exist?" would be universally "no", 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘥𝘰 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 "𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘴".
The question itself is merely sophistry with baked in assumptions.
This is just one example, but almost every sociopolitical argument suffers from this. (If you're interested in the fundamental why, look up 'the problem of universals'.)
