What makes a nation, state, or country "legitimate" or "illegitimate"? - And how does that matter in world affairs?

[Iwasamwillbe]

Whenever I come across Anti-Zionist discussions on the Internet, one of the most recurring criticisms of Israel is that Israel is an "illegitimate" nation that "stole" land from the Palestinian people.

To me, this sounds eerily similar to "academic" notions that America is "illegitimate" because it was built and developed through colonialism.

Of course, very rarely is it ever precisely defined in either case how exactly the given states are "illegitimate", what is the criteria for any state to be "legitimate" or "illegitimate", what does it even mean when a state is "illegitimate", and how is any given state's "legitimacy" even relevant in any context.

So, I ask you Kiwis, what does it mean when a state is "legitimate" or "illegitimate"?

 

[crocodilian]

The territory that's currently called Israel was formerly occupied by the Natufian people, which genetically were most similar to Basal+Western Eurasians. They weren't exactly primitive; they had agriculture, could brew beer, baked bread, bred dogs (including general animal husbandry), used various tools, engaged in trade with nearby Semit peoples and even had forms of artwork. Most research suggests that the Natufians were forcibly displaced (as they were not a nomadic people), presumably by nearby semit neighbors.

I wrote all of that boring shit because the Jews and Palestinians will cry endlessly over who "really has claim to Israel", but both very likely took an active role in pushing out the region's actual original inhabitants. Any semit bitching over legitimate or illegitimate land is, in itself, totally illegitimate.

 

[Gustav Schuchardt]

Whenever I come across Anti-Zionist discussions on the Internet, one of the most recurring criticisms of Israel is that Israel is an "illegitimate" nation that "stole" land from the Palestinian people.

To me, this sounds eerily similar to "academic" notions that America is "illegitimate" because it was built and developed through colonialism.

It's the same argument. What the people making it don't realise is that by that standard all states are 'illegitimate', even the ones they like.

 

[Pixy]

I suppose UN and international recognition would make a state "legitimate" in terms of statehood. Take South Ossetia, for example. Aside from Russia (obviously) and a few other countries, the rest of the world regards it as Georgian territory.

 

[Riceprice]

Depends on whose got the bigger pockets or guns at the time.

 

[fishmonger]

A state being legitimate mostly depends on if a wide majority of UN member states recognize said state as such. The island of Cyprus is geopolitically split into the Republic of Cyprus and Northern Cyprus, yet only Turkey recognizes Northen Cyprus as a legitimate state.

 

[KeyserBroze]

Most likely what part of the world the person discussing the country is from,

The words 'legitimate' and 'illegitimate' when relating to Governments are generally used to justify something or other.

 

[A Useless Fish]

I would say realistically the first rule of a state becoming legitimate is having a government of whatever form that can not only create laws, but has the monopoly of force to make those laws legal. While doing this, it must also having the power to defend itself from external threats. If it lacks the power to maintain its own freedom of action, it is not an indepandent nation, but a vassal of something else.

For a lark, is there an argument to be made that Confederate States formed a legitimate Government?

 

[Крыса]

I suppose UN and international recognition would make a state "legitimate" in terms of statehood. Take South Ossetia, for example. Aside from Russia (obviously) and a few other countries, the rest of the world regards it as Georgian territory.

There's an interesting video on youtube covering more or less that subject by asking the question "How many countries are there ?", and even more down to earth than the question of legitimacy, it asks "What is a country ?". There's an overview or mentions of ambiguous cases like Palestine, Taiwan, Somaliland and others, it doesn't really go into details though

 

[Chiang Kai-shek]

I think calling Israel an "illegitimate state" refers to the way it was created and got territory. As everyone knows, the UN decided to partition the mandate of Palestine between Jews and Arabs. Now there were three other previous plans to partition Israel but the Arabs said no to all three (which actually gave the Jews a much much smaller amount of territory than the 47 plan did) but the Jews accepted the 47 plan. (The natural response would be "the (((jews))) got more land than the kebabs so obviously they would accept it!" This is ignoring the fact that southern Israel was fucking barren desert with nearly no one living there and the Arabs getting all the good farm land.) Now here's where things get sticky the Jews did accept the plan but the Arabs didn't (not unusual) but a year later the Jews go fuck that and declare independence claiming all the Jew partitioned area as Israel. The Arabs decided to invade and fuck up the Jews because why the fuck not? As we all know the Jews won the war and got Israel while the Arabs living in the Arab areas were occupied by Jordan and Egypt. So the Jews agreed to the deal but ended up gaining more land via war than intended thus perhaps nullifying the deal? Honestly, Israel and Palestine is a situation where no one will be happy until someone genocides the other.

As for what makes a state legitimate, that's a tough question. Take the Republic of China, it has a government, holds territory, collects taxes, has a military, has currency, has passports etc. but it isn't considered legitimate thanks to the People's Republic of China threatening to cut everyone off from cheap slave labor if they don't consider the PRC true China. The only thing we have to go is the UN recognizing something as a state, but again the UN is fucking useless. That's my two cents, I don't like the "illegitimate state" argument as every nation has pulled the same shit Israel has done. If someone presents an argument suggesting Israel shouldn't exist I'm gonna ignore it as it's been here for nearly half a century and removing it is gonna cause a fuck ton of problems for the people living there and the institutions there. Not to mention I hope you like have a flood of (((them))) invading your neighborhoods.

That's my opinion, but don't quote me on the history of Israel thing as I provided a very basic overview of the foundation of Israel.

 

[Fagbag]

Generally speaking a legitimate government is one who rules with the consent of the governed in a clearly defined territory over which it has a monopoly on the use of violence.
Liberal theorists (and probably some constructivists) would add that a legitimate government needs to follow international norms set by multilateral agreements/treaties/""""""laws""""""", but so-called legitimate countries regularly ditch these agreements, even when they've proposed them. If following international law is a requisite for legitimacy, very few states qualify, so it's not a very useful way to define legitimacy.

 

[Eryngium]

The territory that's currently called Israel was formerly occupied by the Natufian people, which genetically were most similar to Basal+Western Eurasians. They weren't exactly primitive; they had agriculture, could brew beer, baked bread, bred dogs (including general animal husbandry), used various tools, engaged in trade with nearby Semit peoples and even had forms of artwork. Most research suggests that the Natufians were forcibly displaced (as they were not a nomadic people), presumably by nearby semit neighbors.

I wrote all of that boring shit because the Jews and Palestinians will cry endlessly over who "really has claim to Israel", but both very likely took an active role in pushing out the region's actual original inhabitants. Any semit bitching over legitimate or illegitimate land is, in itself, totally illegitimate.

Wouldn't that make both the US and Canada illegitimate because they murdered and raped all the native Indians to near extinction?

 

[дядя Боря]

1. being able to defends it's borders.
Soviet Union was the first country to recognize Israel. However, if arab armies could invade it, there is not a whole lot you can do with that recognition. Same with South Osetia or Crimea, which is 5 years, been under Russian control. Sure there are sanctions, but who gives a shit, because neither US nor Euros are sending military to take it back, shit they barely help. So no amount of recognition will help you. Consider the Sealand. Sure it's a fucking platform, but no one really wants to invade it (not too often) so you can claim whatever. Ownership is 95% possession.

2. de jure recognition by other countries that enables interaction with outside world, via trade or travel. Again, there are countries that are not recognized by others, you won't be able to trade, which is the whole point of recognition. Try to enter another country with a passport from Sealand or DNR ... it kind of makes it useless.

3. Power. Illegitimacy is something that loosers will cry and bitch about. So what, if they can't do shit, shit will be done. Israel has done really questionable shit kidnapping alleged war criminals or doing pre-emptive strikes on foreign countries. If Israel didn't have nukes or strong military, they would get fucked up real bad. Same deal with North Korea. They may be total assholes, but they got nukes, so everyone listens to what they have to say, no matter what clown is at the helm. Ukraine gave up nukes in exchange for US, Russia and EU guarantee to their territorial integrity. Russia takes Crimea (don't even talk to me about that "referendum" at gun point) ... and 5 years later they are still as fucked as they were despite bullshit promises.

 

[Fashy Airship]

Whenever I come across Anti-Zionist discussions on the Internet, one of the most recurring criticisms of Israel is that Israel is an "illegitimate" nation that "stole" land from the Palestinian people.

To me, this sounds eerily similar to "academic" notions that America is "illegitimate" because it was built and developed through colonialism.

Of course, very rarely is it ever precisely defined in either case how exactly the given states are "illegitimate", what is the criteria for any state to be "legitimate" or "illegitimate", what does it even mean when a state is "illegitimate", and how is any given state's "legitimacy" even relevant in any context.

So, I ask you Kiwis, what does it mean when a state is "legitimate" or "illegitimate"?

If it conforms to the USA foreign policy and recognizes Israel / Palestine. Or to put it in Neon-Nazi terminology, if it's part of ZOG or not.

 

[JULAY]

Whenever I come across Anti-Zionist discussions on the Internet, one of the most recurring criticisms of Israel is that Israel is an "illegitimate" nation that "stole" land from the Palestinian people.

To me, this sounds eerily similar to "academic" notions that America is "illegitimate" because it was built and developed through colonialism.

Of course, very rarely is it ever precisely defined in either case how exactly the given states are "illegitimate", what is the criteria for any state to be "legitimate" or "illegitimate", what does it even mean when a state is "illegitimate", and how is any given state's "legitimacy" even relevant in any context.

So, I ask you Kiwis, what does it mean when a state is "legitimate" or "illegitimate"?

Balfour declaration aside, the Zionists have no legitimate claim on the territory that they currently occupy. We should have forced Ze Germans to give up Bavaria or something so the Jews could have a homeland. Palestinians had literally nothing to do with the treatment of the Jews during WWII and the rest of the centuries of persecution they faced in Europe, so why should the Palestinians suffer because Jews decided they had a right to their ancestral "Holy Land"?

Now, more generally, what makes a state illegitimate is a pretty nebulous concept. International recognition by the UN matters, as does having a common history, culture, and traditions insular to a particular place and/or time. Now, given the Jews, I would argue that 2000 - 4000 years ago doesn't make the nut, but a continuous community that has lived in a place for generations does. Ultimately though, I agree with Chairman Mao in one respect; Power grows out of the barrel of a gun. States that are able to militarily defend themselves are much more likely to be considered legitimate. Hence the Jews claiming Israel and being recognized as sovereign, and hence Western Sahara not having a claim considered legitimate by the international community.

 

[Terrorist]

"legitmacy" hasn't been a thing for 99% of history, and if a country is powerful enough it can weasel its way out of the few rules we have now regardless. Israel probably would get sanctioned for all the shit it's pulled, if it wasn't so important in maintaining the international neoliberal power structure in the mideast.

 

[RG 448]

Whether or not it’s an ally of the US.

Look at it this way: we can’t invade your country for its oil supply if you’ve already given it to us.

 

[Clop]

My first and last answer to any legitimacy quarrel for land is: "If you want it, come and get it"

Fuck all this first dibs shit and fuck your ancestry, get a job.

 

[Omnium Ultimatus]

Legitimacy and illegitimacy are like good and evil, arbitrarily defined. They're just labels people use to demonize anyone against their interests and lionize allies.

 

[ConfederateIrishman]

Legitimacy is determined by the Superpower and it’s “unaffiliated” organizations
If there is more than one Superpower, then legitimacy is determined if they both agree, and if they don’t it then comes down to which Superpower you are in to determin the official legitimate countries.