That's a remarkable position, thanks for being honest about it. So israel is currently pursuing what is in your eyes the only possible route to legitimacy - i.e., maintaining ownership while the ~200-year clock counts down?
Past crimes being hard or impossible to prosecute doesn't mean current crimes can't be prosecuted. Israel is illegal today and today it is just and moral to do everything possible to repel them. I would have supplied Natives with fighter jets if they were being invaded by "Americans" today. If some entity manages to keep it for 200 years without trouble, then I'd consider it a legal state. And that entity might as well call it Qin Shang or Provincia del Levante or anything else.
This is of course distinct from the mere practical fact of some entity owning some place. Russia currently owns places that are justifiably Ukrainian property but it doesn't make its ownership claims valid. If it can keep on to it for a few centuries stably which is to say without internal threads to break off or constant barrages of freedom fighters haven't existed for 200 years and people legitimately identify as Russian, then it is Russia. Otherwise it is not, and I support arming and aiding Ukrainians to repel the invaders.
I believe we must help Iran, Lebanon, etc build nukes. This will have the added benefit of the gulf arab countries being forced to build nukes and Israel's mindless hyperviolence having a degree of checks and balances put upon it.
Let me ask you a question now, you said you don't agree with everything your government does. Would you disagree with shooting illegal settlers who are right now robbing others lands? Why or why not?
Outside of states there is no law - only survival. I would expect stateless people to use force to preserve and increase their resources, and I would of course do so myself in such a situation. I'm not sure if the concept of private ownership exists without a sovereign state to enforce laws. I could "support" or "oppose" either side, but if that's just in terms of emotivism there is no authority to sway with my emotions, and it therefore seems moot (in such a scenario I likely wouldn't ever even consider such things, as such considerations would be inapplicable and meaningless). I could also support or oppose by contributing force, in which case I would be doing so in terms of my own survival, with ethical/legal perspectives/judgement remaining inapplicable. Does that make sense? What do you think?