freediver wrote on Sep 11^th, 2025 at 11:34am:


Yes, but only  as described by UN res 181, since this is what the UN partition plan envisioned. 

ie, so long as Israel refuses to accept UN res 181, Israel should NOT be recognized as a legitimate state, by the international community.

Unlike you, I believe in the UN project and international law.

But the UN's "right"  to partititon  Palestine  - a topic I explored in my post, and which you won't address because you are a blind "individual freedom" ideologue, is questioned by scholars.

Anyway, I answered your question.

freediver wrote on Sep 11^th, 2025 at 1:06pm:


What standard?

The 'right' of the UN to partition already existing Palestine is questioned by some scholars, given the UN - at its founding - was denied the machinery to defend its rulings.


Hence international law remains subject to "might is right", a catastrophe  for the world.

And so Trump yelled at Zelensky: "ya wanna start WW3?"...

(whereas Tibet  was never recognized as an independent country, both before and  after Qing China's collapse in 1911; nor has the UN ever recognized Tibet's independence).   

freediver wrote on Sep 11^th, 2025 at 3:17pm:


Israel doesn't need  "a special UN resolution to justify its right to exist"; UN res 181 already granted Israel's "right to exist", but the UN was unable to defend UN res 181 for the reasons I explained to you (chief among them being your own "individual rights" delusions which place individual rights above collective rights as enumerated in the UNUniversalUDHR). 

But your 2nd point is correct: states must comply with  international law to maintain the right to exist.

thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 11^th, 2025 at 4:11pm:


Does any other state's right to exist depend on a special UN resolution?

Does any violation of UN law or UN resolutions void a nation's right to exist?

freediver wrote on Sep 11^th, 2025 at 7:00pm:


Well....

(google)

The UN cannot create states; it does not have the authority to recognize a state or government, but rather it is an organization of existing independent states. The process for a new entity to become a UN member state involves receiving a recommendation from the Security Council and then an affirmative vote in the General Assembly

Hence acceptance of Israel, a new entity, in 1947; but no UN machinery to implement UN res 181, the enabling resolution, resulting in an endless war.


However,  the UN can expel a state:

(google)

"The United Nations can expel a member state, but only under specific conditions and procedures outlined in Article 6 of the UN Charter...."  a Charter which can't be defended, given widespread adherence  to the obsolete Westphalian absolute national sovereignty dogma.   

Quote:


In legal theory, yes, but in practice, no - because the UN can't defend the rule of international law  (owing to your delusional 'individual rights'/'absolute national sovereignty' ideology).

Note: violation of national law results in loss of freedom for the  individual; violation of international  law by a state SHOULD result in expulsion from the UN, but it doesn't.

Nobody is denying Israel's right to exist but most don't support Israel's right to make Palestine not exist.

As I have said before!

"Their NAZI Masters Taught Them Well!! "