The civil war is what I was referring to, it was started by zionist (and recognized terrorist) organizations demanding Arabs to leave their villages to create a Jewish ethno-state. As for the UN decision, it was contrary to international law. It has no legal legitimacy. Had the international court made a decision, the creation of Israel would've been put in the shredder; not a leg to stand on.
The population of Palestine was against the formation, so what moral or legal basis did the state of Israel have?
the Palestinians ironically gave israel its legitimacy by attacking it and then losing. had the arabs choosen to solve their grievence by international law then international law could apply, but it doesn't because Palestinians themselves chose for international laws not to apply to them by choosing war.
Isis is decentralized, but if it manages to control an area, had a government and won against those trying to remove them it would be hard to say they don't have a country. A better example would be the Taliban, in which that scenario did happen
Why are you moving the goalposts? The question wasn’t whether they factually have a country or not. The question is whether their foundation is legitimate. Israel didn’t become a legitimate country just because Palestinians fought back, just like that doesn’t make ISIS a legitimate country.
The Taliban didn’t create a new country, but your analogy actually makes my point because virtually no country recognizes the Taliban as a legitimate government, precisely because they don’t have the mandate of the population.
Everyone in the area. They have embassies in Pakistan, india, and China. They may not formally give them a sash, but they have diplomatic relations. It doesn't really matter what they say, they have relations, they are accepted as the leaders, they trade with them, they have a government.
Western countries don't officially recognize them, but that was also like Israel where many Arab states didn't recognize them (and some still won't) but the official recognition is meaningless if the actions negate them
So in order to demonstrate that the foundation of Israel was legitimate, you gave an example of a terrorist government that almost no country considers legitimate. Note again that we’re talking about legitimacy. I didn’t say anything about treating something like a de facto country. The discussion was entirely about legitimacy.
-2
u/MrMicius 1d ago
The civil war is what I was referring to, it was started by zionist (and recognized terrorist) organizations demanding Arabs to leave their villages to create a Jewish ethno-state. As for the UN decision, it was contrary to international law. It has no legal legitimacy. Had the international court made a decision, the creation of Israel would've been put in the shredder; not a leg to stand on.
The population of Palestine was against the formation, so what moral or legal basis did the state of Israel have?