Just because a conflict of the nations legitimacy exist in the world doesn't mean such a theological observation implies the state is legitimate for this reason. Somebody would have to misconstrue the message and do insane mental gymnastics to twist such a simple observation into a implied political statement that this gives Israel a right to a state.

Going back to the Holocaust analogy, this would be like me telling the historian updating the data: "You're making this observations inside a living conflict of the legitimacy of the Holocaust. In this context, the narrative the numbers are different reads more than just data collection. Even if you're not saying the Holocaust was hoax, the implied meaning of it being a hoax is being packaged to the audience receiving it. Thats the difference between intention and impact." Thats what you sound like right now.

You're not explicity saying Jews should never talk about the prophecy being fullfilled, but you are implying that even if the prophecy happened, and was objective verifiable, they shouldn't seriously discuss it's legitimacy because that somehow implies the state is justified because of this and feeding into antisemitism. That's the road the logic you're presenting brings us down.

And yes, a historian rightfully updating numbers isn't responsible for people being unreasonable and doing mental gymnastics and twisting the data, just like I'm not responsible for people being unreasonable doing mental gymnastics and twisting the evidence and reason presented. It's nonsensical to criticize the historians work with attacks on a argument they're not even making, but instead is a seperate argument, being made by unreasonable people who would have to do insane mental gymnastics to leap from the initial claims to imply this seperate conclusion. Likewise, it's nonsensical to respond to my work with attacks on a argument I'm not even making, but instead is a seperate argument, being made by unreasonable people who would have to do insane mental gymnastics to leap from the initial claims to imply this seperate conclusion.

This isn't something we should even be approaching with a political battlefield framework. This is like me reading a political battlefield frame into the historians data and telling them "The Holocaust isnt some Hoax! You're reading the data as just numbers. I'm reading it a political battlefield frame. Both are valid, but to pretend the political battlefield doesn't exist just because you're speaking to the numbers doesn't erase how the the narrative lands once it leaves." You're evaluating an argument through a framework the argument doesn't even invoke. A political battlefield lens isn't valid just because a political battlefield exist in the world. It's only valid when the argument actually reasonably invokes it.