We could, of course, look at it by considering which outcome is in the best interests of the British people.
I can see only 2 possible outcomes:
1) The Jews win and the Palestinians are ethnically-cleansed from Gaza and the West Bank. Where would the Palestinians be taken in? I'd bet big money on Western Europe. Our share might be 500k-750k, possibly more.
2) The Muslims win and the Jews are expelled. Where would they go? Overwhelmingly to the USA, though those with historic ties to the UK might initially move here, though it wouldn't make sense as a permanent move given our rapidly expanding Muslim population and their equally rapidly increasing political power.
A Jewish victory would not remotely be in our interests.
I don't think that there is an either/or option here though. The Jews have consistently shown their willingness to work and live peaceably alongside Arabs - there are after all some 2 million Israeli Arabs who enjoy all the same freedoms and rights as Israeli Jews. They even occupy influential positions in Parliament, the military and the judiciary.
My reading is that the Jews want to live in peace, but the Palestinians do not, at least in significant enough numbers to render peace attainable.
As to what the 'solution' to this mess looks like in realistic, practical terms, I have no idea
Sticking to the old British imperialist line, back when the UK armed, trained, and provided the officers of the Jordanian Legion (including military intelligence) as it invaded Israel, ethnically cleansed Jews from the old city of Jerusalem, where they had been the majority since 1840, as well as newer Jewish villages in the so-called West Bank (Judea and Samaria).
No, it is not in the interest of the British people to have an Islamist terrorist army win a genocidal war against the only Jewish state. A victory for Hamas, Hezbollah and the Islamic Republic of Iran is not compatible with the interests of any democratic country.
You're already facing down an Islamist invasion, and plenty of Islamist terrorism. It's 7/7 today, and your take is deeply wrong.
A different hypothetical question for you. Had Israel set up state in a relatively neutral territory. Let's say they'd bought land in Antarctica and established their capital and nation there. And it was, for sake of argument, entirely uncontested by any other nation.
Do you think this would have left the Arab States without a unifying local enemy? Do you think they would have instead turned on each other? Do you think the fundamentalists would have remained as energised without such a very convenient and visible regional scapegoat?
So you're saying the basic problem is the Jews here? It's their ethnicity that's the problem and the hypothetical question I posed, which removed ethnicity from the equation, does not really give rise to any moral flags?
The basic problem is not the Jews, it's Islam. Islamic theology states that Muslims *must* kill infidels, and Jews are infidels, as are Christians, Buddhists and lots of other folk.
The most famous hadith about slaughtering Jews reads...
Allah’s Messenger said, “The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. ‘O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.’”
- Sahih Bukhari 4:52:177
When you're dealing with that level of hatred, compromise is not on the table.
That would be cool. I'm genuinely interested to see whether the hypothetical I posed, which is an attempt to remove the emotive issue of ethnicity entirely, generates a similar degree of 'moral outrage' and, if so, why - and what changes when we bring ethnicity back into the equation
When the first group of proto-Zionists arrived in 1880 there were 300K Jews and Arabs living in the same land which had 630K Jews and 1.3M Arabs in 1947, which now has 15 million Jews and Arabs. Tell me how "there was no room for Jewish refugees" from the virulent antisemitism of Europe and the Arab world? I'm trying to figure out how this propaganda claim of the Free Palestine cult works.
Jews were the ones who cured the shitty malaria infested swampland they were sold by Arab land owners. That in turn caused a massive increase in the Arab population. Jews and the British Empire both provided an economic engine in that region. The entire economic and human development is the result of the effort of Jewish refugees immigrating to their ancestral homeland, and the British. I grew up in a working class neighborhood right next to the oil refinery, originally built by the British to process oil flowing in a straight line from Basra to Haifa. There was nothing much in Haifa before Jews and the British. Nothing much anywhere in that desolate land.
I sometimes imagine where we would be if, after WW2, the Jewish people had been given a portion of Germany as their new homeland. I don’t get very far tbh, but the Middle East might look very different.
Had the Palestinians and Arabs been a peaceful people and not tried to start (several) wars to obliterate Israel, how would history have been different?
I would hope they would have developed the southern and eastern shores of the Med into the tourist paradises that Trump envisaged, become economically sound, liberal on the Turkish model and people would have wanted to stay there, rather than trying to get to the west. Dream on!
But why Germany when the land is Israel is their homeland? We can trace our ancestors back to that land. It’s only a multitude of expulsions and attempted annihilations that made us look to further shores to make a home. And believe me when I say, the homes we have made are temporary. My grandfather told me to always have a bag packed. We are temporary residents only.
They paid compensation that helped develop Israel. My grandmother lost her parents, young brother, and her entire extended family, other than her younger sister. They escaped via Switzerland to British Mandate Palestine. I exist because Palestine, then Israel, was a refuge for Jews escaping the Nazis. She got compensation for the murder of her family and theft of her family's property. Similarly, Germany remains a reliable diplomatic and military ally of Israel when the UK and France and others (Spain, Netherlands) rush to assist Hamas and impose an arms embargo on Israel, during a war launched by the Palestinians.
Just a quick reminder, right after WW2 the US still barred Jewish Holocaust survivors from immigrating to America, and the British barred those 250K Jews stuck for years in IDP camps from immigrating to British Mandate Palestine. The support for the creation of Israel is in large part because in the 20s-50s Canada, the US, Brazil and other immigrant countries stopped all Jewish immigration. Zionism is a movement of no choice, and it's directly a result of (mainly Eastern and Central) European antisemitic violence, coupled with the refusal of democracies to accept Jewish immigration.
The Middle East would continue to be rife with ethnic cleansing, civil wars, totalitarian regimes. Seriously, look at everything from Tunisia to Iran, and explain how the pathetic state they're all in is the fault of Jewish refugees returning to their ancestral homeland from antisemitic Europe and the Arab World.
It should have been clear early on that this state called Israel wasn't going to work. It was born into great chaos. This isn't so different from anywhere else where colonisers engage in brutal wars with the peoples of the area. Its just that Israel / Palestine thing has been so very vexed with both sides brutalising the other. The difference is that most colonisers crush the natives. The Zionists haven't managed to do that yet and probably never will. They either need to win decisively or look for a new homeland.
We're back to questions of legitimacy again here. And it depends where that 'legitimate' line is drawn. Do we go back and draw our line at the Arab conquest and colonization of the region? Or do we draw the line further back to the last actual country that was there - which was Jewish?
If you want to draw the line at this earlier point in history, then the Jews were de-colonizing the land in the early 20th century.
I think the state of Israel has 'worked' very well and is the only real example of a liberal western democracy in the region with all the rights and checks and balances that entails.
I don't think the 'Zionist' perspective was ever to 'crush' anybody - they certainly haven't 'crushed' the 2 million Arabs currently living in Israel as Israeli citizens, have they?
The Jews have a long history of being kicked out of places. Might be a reason for that. Just saying. I don't know.
If I lived next door to some horrible Muslims (entirely likely given current retarded immigration policies) who kept trying to kill me I would leave (as killing them probably wouldn't be an option for me). It is existential for the Jews in Israel. How bad do they wanna stay? There's loads of blood yet to be spilled. A peaceful man would reject violence. I personally would not be sticking around where I am clearly not wanted.
Yes but you would have to decide if that is a winning strategy. If death and violence doesn’t bother you and it is the land that is of most importance then we would see a situation like the current one.
A peaceful man like you is just antisemitic and excited for the destruction of a democratic country. Sadly for you, your Hezbollah idols are still looking for their blown off dicks.
But it has worked. Israel is 10 million people now from 630K in 1947. It absorbed the majority of the million Jews expelled from the Arab world. It absorbed millions of Jews escaping the antisemitism of the Soviet Union and post-Soviet collapse. It is exactly what it was intended to be - a refuge for stateless Jews.
As for success, it's the single and oldest functioning democracy in the Middle East, and at 77 years it's had a longer continuous existence as a democracy than much of Europe. It was a UN member state ahead of 131 of 193 countries. It has a GDP per-capita larger than the UK and France, equal to Canada. On development alone it is well ahead of most of Europe, including the EU states.
"wasn't going to work" is a ridiculous statement. The majority of the 22 Arab countries are underdeveloped or failed states that most Arabs would love to escape from. You got it backwards. You probably noticed how Israel decisively beat multiple terrorist armies (Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis) and countries (Syria, Iran) in the war started on October 7 by your Pals. Maybe you're just too anti-Israel to be aware of reality, though.
As for Israeli martial prowess, I think (but can't find a reference) that Israeli General Moshe Dayan wryly observed that the reason the IDF wins such tremendous military victories is because they always fight Arabs.
Say what you like about them, Jewish folks do have a GSOH. :-)
I think that considering the legitimacy of the state of Israel is the wrong approach.
A more appropriate question is, was it a smart thing to do?
I'm a great admirer of Israel. Their martial prowess, their technology, carving gardens from the desert, all of that is laudable.
But sticking a bunch of Jews into their own state in the middle east? Incredibly stupid, because Muslims have an irrational hatred of Jews, and will try to kill them. Its automatic, like ants attacking an invader in the nest. As long as Israel and Muslims exist in the world, the Muslims will try to kill Israelis.
Ive seen it postulated that a part of Western Australia was considered as a site for Israel, a place much like the Sinai. If that had happened, I'm sure there'd now be a peaceful Jewish paradise in WA, while the Arabs in the levant would still be stumbling around looking for a pot to piss in or a goat to fuck, and killing each other under the Shia-Sunni rules of engagement. Muslims always have to have *somebody* to kill.
Tl;Dr the Arab-Israeli conflict will never end. The Israelis aren't going anywhere, and they won't lay down their arms. Ultimately, putting them there was a dumb decision.
PUT THERE?? They weren’t ’put there’, it’s their historical homeland ffs. Maybe we should ‘put’ the Cherokee or Navajo in, say, Ethiopia, might have saved a lot of aggravation.
The Jews have not been ‘stuck’ in a land. This is not a foreign land. This is not an alien land. This is their historical homeland. They are not made up of Europeans. The majority are mizrahi Jews who have lived in this land and the area for centuries before Christ.
Really appreciate this post, appreciate most of your posts (although the physics based ones test my ‘O’ level physics knowledge) but I absolutely know why you don’t post on this conflict. But OMGFG.
"The central question is whether Israel has a right to exist at all. Is it a legitimate state or not?"
A state is legiyimate if it is:
Self-supporting; that it can continue to exist without foreign aid
Capable of defending its territory from military invasion; if a state lack the capability or lose to an invading force, the legitimacy is voided
A state that does not meet these two criteria is not legitimately a /sovereign/ state; it may be legitimate as a satrapy or vassal state, or as we say to be polite about it, an "allied nation".
We can use UK as an example. Let's break off Wales. Could Wales exist as a sovereign state depending only on itself (trade and such is included in being self-supporting since you must have something to trade with in the first place)? Is this hypothetical state of Wales (not Whales) capable of raising and keeping military for self-defense?
(I honestly have no idea, lacking hard data.)
Do note that tech-level or comfort of living plays no part in the equation, only the self-support issues.
Anway, that's how you do a barebones definition of legitimacy. Morals, ideologies and other fluff does not play into the issue. If those are added, then you are making a moral judgement about whether or not a state (and its people) have a right to exist based on your own moral principles.
Personally, I'm fine with that, but I'm also honest about my view that the world on the whole would be better off if some groups were either a) forcibly civilised and uplifted or b) isolated and subjected to segregation as a whole until they evolve enough "to be let into furnished rooms" to translate an idiom, or c) left to eradicate themselves.
Arab Moslems for me falls into the b) and c) categories, based om empirical evidence and experience. The Jewish Apartheid state of Israel I care not one jot if it falls into the ocean tomorrow, and I feel exactly the same about the illegitimate state of Palestine that is actually in existence right now.
Let them hang together and let rid our nations of them and their influence here. We were nice to both, we extended trust and confidence to both, and they both spit at us, curse us and try to kill us or draw us into their eternal and silly little war over Sara and Hagar having a spat over their shared husband.
Leave them to it and keep them away from our lands, is the best policy: you don't try to separate rabid dogs.
In which case I doubt the UK is a legitimate state, by your logic.
Israel isn’t an apartheid state. I’m surprised that you fall into that trap.
I don’t understand what you mean by Israel has cursed and tried to kill you? Please elaborate. Or do you mean that Israel has refused to die quietly and without a fuss and not grovelled at your feet? Goddamn those bloody Zionists, hey?
We could, of course, look at it by considering which outcome is in the best interests of the British people.
I can see only 2 possible outcomes:
1) The Jews win and the Palestinians are ethnically-cleansed from Gaza and the West Bank. Where would the Palestinians be taken in? I'd bet big money on Western Europe. Our share might be 500k-750k, possibly more.
2) The Muslims win and the Jews are expelled. Where would they go? Overwhelmingly to the USA, though those with historic ties to the UK might initially move here, though it wouldn't make sense as a permanent move given our rapidly expanding Muslim population and their equally rapidly increasing political power.
A Jewish victory would not remotely be in our interests.
Interesting perspective.
I don't think that there is an either/or option here though. The Jews have consistently shown their willingness to work and live peaceably alongside Arabs - there are after all some 2 million Israeli Arabs who enjoy all the same freedoms and rights as Israeli Jews. They even occupy influential positions in Parliament, the military and the judiciary.
My reading is that the Jews want to live in peace, but the Palestinians do not, at least in significant enough numbers to render peace attainable.
As to what the 'solution' to this mess looks like in realistic, practical terms, I have no idea
The Arabs annd Palestinians come anywhere.
Where I grew up in Berlin, Germany, is very much in Palestinian hand now. I had to move.
Europe is flooded by Arabs and Africans for decades now.
Why not?
I have explained why not.
Well kindly explain again.
Sticking to the old British imperialist line, back when the UK armed, trained, and provided the officers of the Jordanian Legion (including military intelligence) as it invaded Israel, ethnically cleansed Jews from the old city of Jerusalem, where they had been the majority since 1840, as well as newer Jewish villages in the so-called West Bank (Judea and Samaria).
No, it is not in the interest of the British people to have an Islamist terrorist army win a genocidal war against the only Jewish state. A victory for Hamas, Hezbollah and the Islamic Republic of Iran is not compatible with the interests of any democratic country.
You're already facing down an Islamist invasion, and plenty of Islamist terrorism. It's 7/7 today, and your take is deeply wrong.
A different hypothetical question for you. Had Israel set up state in a relatively neutral territory. Let's say they'd bought land in Antarctica and established their capital and nation there. And it was, for sake of argument, entirely uncontested by any other nation.
Do you think this would have left the Arab States without a unifying local enemy? Do you think they would have instead turned on each other? Do you think the fundamentalists would have remained as energised without such a very convenient and visible regional scapegoat?
So you're saying the basic problem is the Jews here? It's their ethnicity that's the problem and the hypothetical question I posed, which removed ethnicity from the equation, does not really give rise to any moral flags?
The basic problem is not the Jews, it's Islam. Islamic theology states that Muslims *must* kill infidels, and Jews are infidels, as are Christians, Buddhists and lots of other folk.
The most famous hadith about slaughtering Jews reads...
Allah’s Messenger said, “The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. ‘O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.’”
- Sahih Bukhari 4:52:177
When you're dealing with that level of hatred, compromise is not on the table.
Let me read through again, have a think, then possibly better word my questions. ^^
That would be cool. I'm genuinely interested to see whether the hypothetical I posed, which is an attempt to remove the emotive issue of ethnicity entirely, generates a similar degree of 'moral outrage' and, if so, why - and what changes when we bring ethnicity back into the equation
Yes, they would turn on each other, as they do. Just look at Lebanon. Or the mortal enmity of Saudi Arabia and Iran.
"I against my brother. I and my brother against my cousin. I, my brother, and my cousin against the world."
No. Simple answer. They were and still are a tribal people who fight amongst themselves.
When the first group of proto-Zionists arrived in 1880 there were 300K Jews and Arabs living in the same land which had 630K Jews and 1.3M Arabs in 1947, which now has 15 million Jews and Arabs. Tell me how "there was no room for Jewish refugees" from the virulent antisemitism of Europe and the Arab world? I'm trying to figure out how this propaganda claim of the Free Palestine cult works.
Jews were the ones who cured the shitty malaria infested swampland they were sold by Arab land owners. That in turn caused a massive increase in the Arab population. Jews and the British Empire both provided an economic engine in that region. The entire economic and human development is the result of the effort of Jewish refugees immigrating to their ancestral homeland, and the British. I grew up in a working class neighborhood right next to the oil refinery, originally built by the British to process oil flowing in a straight line from Basra to Haifa. There was nothing much in Haifa before Jews and the British. Nothing much anywhere in that desolate land.
I sometimes imagine where we would be if, after WW2, the Jewish people had been given a portion of Germany as their new homeland. I don’t get very far tbh, but the Middle East might look very different.
I wonder questions like this too.
Had the Palestinians and Arabs been a peaceful people and not tried to start (several) wars to obliterate Israel, how would history have been different?
I would hope they would have developed the southern and eastern shores of the Med into the tourist paradises that Trump envisaged, become economically sound, liberal on the Turkish model and people would have wanted to stay there, rather than trying to get to the west. Dream on!
But why Germany when the land is Israel is their homeland? We can trace our ancestors back to that land. It’s only a multitude of expulsions and attempted annihilations that made us look to further shores to make a home. And believe me when I say, the homes we have made are temporary. My grandfather told me to always have a bag packed. We are temporary residents only.
Largely due to what the Germans did to the Jewish people I suppose. Retribution and a reminder to the world.
They paid compensation that helped develop Israel. My grandmother lost her parents, young brother, and her entire extended family, other than her younger sister. They escaped via Switzerland to British Mandate Palestine. I exist because Palestine, then Israel, was a refuge for Jews escaping the Nazis. She got compensation for the murder of her family and theft of her family's property. Similarly, Germany remains a reliable diplomatic and military ally of Israel when the UK and France and others (Spain, Netherlands) rush to assist Hamas and impose an arms embargo on Israel, during a war launched by the Palestinians.
Just a quick reminder, right after WW2 the US still barred Jewish Holocaust survivors from immigrating to America, and the British barred those 250K Jews stuck for years in IDP camps from immigrating to British Mandate Palestine. The support for the creation of Israel is in large part because in the 20s-50s Canada, the US, Brazil and other immigrant countries stopped all Jewish immigration. Zionism is a movement of no choice, and it's directly a result of (mainly Eastern and Central) European antisemitic violence, coupled with the refusal of democracies to accept Jewish immigration.
The Middle East would continue to be rife with ethnic cleansing, civil wars, totalitarian regimes. Seriously, look at everything from Tunisia to Iran, and explain how the pathetic state they're all in is the fault of Jewish refugees returning to their ancestral homeland from antisemitic Europe and the Arab World.
It should have been clear early on that this state called Israel wasn't going to work. It was born into great chaos. This isn't so different from anywhere else where colonisers engage in brutal wars with the peoples of the area. Its just that Israel / Palestine thing has been so very vexed with both sides brutalising the other. The difference is that most colonisers crush the natives. The Zionists haven't managed to do that yet and probably never will. They either need to win decisively or look for a new homeland.
We're back to questions of legitimacy again here. And it depends where that 'legitimate' line is drawn. Do we go back and draw our line at the Arab conquest and colonization of the region? Or do we draw the line further back to the last actual country that was there - which was Jewish?
If you want to draw the line at this earlier point in history, then the Jews were de-colonizing the land in the early 20th century.
I think the state of Israel has 'worked' very well and is the only real example of a liberal western democracy in the region with all the rights and checks and balances that entails.
I don't think the 'Zionist' perspective was ever to 'crush' anybody - they certainly haven't 'crushed' the 2 million Arabs currently living in Israel as Israeli citizens, have they?
Its not about legitimacy. That's a non-argument. It's about getting it to work. It hasn't worked well at all. They're bombing each other as we speak.
You have a point - unfortunately the Palestinians and other Arab nations are the fly in the ointment and have deliberately tried to stop it working
The Jews have a long history of being kicked out of places. Might be a reason for that. Just saying. I don't know.
If I lived next door to some horrible Muslims (entirely likely given current retarded immigration policies) who kept trying to kill me I would leave (as killing them probably wouldn't be an option for me). It is existential for the Jews in Israel. How bad do they wanna stay? There's loads of blood yet to be spilled. A peaceful man would reject violence. I personally would not be sticking around where I am clearly not wanted.
But you would not feel the desire to fight for the land you legally own? Really?
Yes but you would have to decide if that is a winning strategy. If death and violence doesn’t bother you and it is the land that is of most importance then we would see a situation like the current one.
A peaceful man like you is just antisemitic and excited for the destruction of a democratic country. Sadly for you, your Hezbollah idols are still looking for their blown off dicks.
Antisemitic? That's so yesteryear. No one believes that shit excuse no more.
And what’s a Zionist? Please explain. Because if you mean ‘Jew’ please just say ‘Jew’ so we’re clear.
But do not fret, they will win, decisively.
Who are they - the Jews of the Zionists?
Another homeland? Where would you suggest?
But it has worked. Israel is 10 million people now from 630K in 1947. It absorbed the majority of the million Jews expelled from the Arab world. It absorbed millions of Jews escaping the antisemitism of the Soviet Union and post-Soviet collapse. It is exactly what it was intended to be - a refuge for stateless Jews.
As for success, it's the single and oldest functioning democracy in the Middle East, and at 77 years it's had a longer continuous existence as a democracy than much of Europe. It was a UN member state ahead of 131 of 193 countries. It has a GDP per-capita larger than the UK and France, equal to Canada. On development alone it is well ahead of most of Europe, including the EU states.
"wasn't going to work" is a ridiculous statement. The majority of the 22 Arab countries are underdeveloped or failed states that most Arabs would love to escape from. You got it backwards. You probably noticed how Israel decisively beat multiple terrorist armies (Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis) and countries (Syria, Iran) in the war started on October 7 by your Pals. Maybe you're just too anti-Israel to be aware of reality, though.
As for Israeli martial prowess, I think (but can't find a reference) that Israeli General Moshe Dayan wryly observed that the reason the IDF wins such tremendous military victories is because they always fight Arabs.
Say what you like about them, Jewish folks do have a GSOH. :-)
I think that considering the legitimacy of the state of Israel is the wrong approach.
A more appropriate question is, was it a smart thing to do?
I'm a great admirer of Israel. Their martial prowess, their technology, carving gardens from the desert, all of that is laudable.
But sticking a bunch of Jews into their own state in the middle east? Incredibly stupid, because Muslims have an irrational hatred of Jews, and will try to kill them. Its automatic, like ants attacking an invader in the nest. As long as Israel and Muslims exist in the world, the Muslims will try to kill Israelis.
Ive seen it postulated that a part of Western Australia was considered as a site for Israel, a place much like the Sinai. If that had happened, I'm sure there'd now be a peaceful Jewish paradise in WA, while the Arabs in the levant would still be stumbling around looking for a pot to piss in or a goat to fuck, and killing each other under the Shia-Sunni rules of engagement. Muslims always have to have *somebody* to kill.
Tl;Dr the Arab-Israeli conflict will never end. The Israelis aren't going anywhere, and they won't lay down their arms. Ultimately, putting them there was a dumb decision.
PUT THERE?? They weren’t ’put there’, it’s their historical homeland ffs. Maybe we should ‘put’ the Cherokee or Navajo in, say, Ethiopia, might have saved a lot of aggravation.
The Jews have not been ‘stuck’ in a land. This is not a foreign land. This is not an alien land. This is their historical homeland. They are not made up of Europeans. The majority are mizrahi Jews who have lived in this land and the area for centuries before Christ.
Really appreciate this post, appreciate most of your posts (although the physics based ones test my ‘O’ level physics knowledge) but I absolutely know why you don’t post on this conflict. But OMGFG.
Well kindly explain again.
"The central question is whether Israel has a right to exist at all. Is it a legitimate state or not?"
A state is legiyimate if it is:
Self-supporting; that it can continue to exist without foreign aid
Capable of defending its territory from military invasion; if a state lack the capability or lose to an invading force, the legitimacy is voided
A state that does not meet these two criteria is not legitimately a /sovereign/ state; it may be legitimate as a satrapy or vassal state, or as we say to be polite about it, an "allied nation".
We can use UK as an example. Let's break off Wales. Could Wales exist as a sovereign state depending only on itself (trade and such is included in being self-supporting since you must have something to trade with in the first place)? Is this hypothetical state of Wales (not Whales) capable of raising and keeping military for self-defense?
(I honestly have no idea, lacking hard data.)
Do note that tech-level or comfort of living plays no part in the equation, only the self-support issues.
Anway, that's how you do a barebones definition of legitimacy. Morals, ideologies and other fluff does not play into the issue. If those are added, then you are making a moral judgement about whether or not a state (and its people) have a right to exist based on your own moral principles.
Personally, I'm fine with that, but I'm also honest about my view that the world on the whole would be better off if some groups were either a) forcibly civilised and uplifted or b) isolated and subjected to segregation as a whole until they evolve enough "to be let into furnished rooms" to translate an idiom, or c) left to eradicate themselves.
Arab Moslems for me falls into the b) and c) categories, based om empirical evidence and experience. The Jewish Apartheid state of Israel I care not one jot if it falls into the ocean tomorrow, and I feel exactly the same about the illegitimate state of Palestine that is actually in existence right now.
Let them hang together and let rid our nations of them and their influence here. We were nice to both, we extended trust and confidence to both, and they both spit at us, curse us and try to kill us or draw us into their eternal and silly little war over Sara and Hagar having a spat over their shared husband.
Leave them to it and keep them away from our lands, is the best policy: you don't try to separate rabid dogs.
In which case I doubt the UK is a legitimate state, by your logic.
Israel isn’t an apartheid state. I’m surprised that you fall into that trap.
I don’t understand what you mean by Israel has cursed and tried to kill you? Please elaborate. Or do you mean that Israel has refused to die quietly and without a fuss and not grovelled at your feet? Goddamn those bloody Zionists, hey?
I think you need a course in reading comprehension, I really do.
Thank you for your measured and illuminating response. I shall take up a class forthwith.