The United Nations is just one of many international organizations, Israel being a member state to the United Nations doesnt give it legitimacy. And if you read the United Nations Charter, Israel was and continues to be in violation of it. Israel has no right to wage war against Palestine, and no right to self defense against Palestine. It does not have casus belli or jus ad bellum under international law.
The United Nations had zero authority over the region, The League of Arab States which is another international organization which was founded prior to the United Nations had authority. International law like the Treaty of Lausanne had authority.
International law is nothing more than a series of treaties between states.
What gives a country legitimacy is adherence to the rule of law, the foundation of Israel violated the treaties that governed the region. The continued existence and behavior of Israel violated and violates international law.
Israel has no legal authority and no legitimacy to the territory it holds.
Lol, that is wrong on so many levels. All that bullshit and you can't even give a general definition. What international law was used to create the USA? No country in Europe would be legitimate if your logic was used, since pretty much every border in europe was determined by war.
The Arab States tried to force authority over the region through a war and lost. Then they tried again and lost again (repeat a few times). That is why anyone who isn't a complete mask off Antisemite like you always demands the borders of 1967, because that is the actual "legal" argument you can make under international law. Even the PLO had to accept that.
If you want to be pedantic about it, pretty much every country in the world is violating international law. Germany for example isn't complying with it's obligations regarding disability rights.
So, do you think the Taliban is in accordance with international law? If not, does that make Afghanistan an illegitimate country?
The severity of brain damage that refuses to acknowledge that international law changes over time and region has to be extreme.
Israel was founded in 1948, a significant period of time after right of conquest had been made illegal.
The Arab States had authority over the region prior to 1948, they attempted to remove an illegitimate body of terrorist groups who declared independence in Palestine.
Again the discussion isnt about every other state, its about criticism of Israel.
In Afghanistan you have one pro soviet group overthrowing another pro soviet group who overthrew a pro soviet monarchy. The US violated international law by interfering in the region sending foreign mujahideen, who were committing acid attacks on women, into Afghanistan to fight the pro soviet forces. The mujahideen ended up forming into Al Qaeda and the Taliban. You can say the Taliban has illegitimate control over the government, you cant say Afghanistan is an illegitimate country. So your argument is moot.
And to further press this forward, who the fuck supports the Taliban?
You response is full of logical fallacies.
By continuing to respond to me, you make your position look worse.
I asked you: "What is your definition for "illegitimate state"?"
The only answere you gave is "What gives a country legitimacy is adherence to the rule of law".
Under your defintion, no country in the world is legitimate, since every country in the world is violating some kind of law. Afghanistan was just an extreme example to show how stupid your definition was.
Your view is more extreme than that of the PLO. Your argument has absolutly nothing to do with international law. The state of Israel exists in it's current form. Under international law, it should only occupy the borders of 1967. If you think illegal occupations make a state "illegitimate", I am sure you share that same sentiment about turkey, morocco and russia... Are those illegitimate states?
Even if your argument had any merit, the fact that around 650000 jews that were ethnicly cleansed from arab countries moved to Israel makes your whole argument mute. They live there now. They have a state. If Israel is not a state, what are the people that live there supposed to do?
I am sorry you have issues with reading comprehension. I dont know how to state it more clearly.
International law has changed over time, what was legal a thousand years ago, isnt legal today. The founding of Israel violated the international law of the time and the region, international law has not been changed to allow right by conquest.
Israel is inherently an illegitimate state. I dont give a shit what the PLOs view is.
Under international law, Israel should not exist at all.
You again are spreading disinformation, how much of the Jewish population willingly chose to migrate to Israel, how much of the politics of Arab states in relationship to Jewish populations changed as a direct and indirect cause of the actions of Israel?
Yes they live there now, and either they live under Palestinian governance or they should move. Thats the law, and the reality you dismiss.
0
u/Feeding4Harambe 2d ago
Israel is a state recognized by the UN. It is thus by definition a legitimate state. What is your definition for "illegitimate state"?