Reader Naftali has posted the following request for discussion:

Or maybe you can speak about your views as to the extent of Torah legitimacy conferred on the Israeli state. I have always seen them as little more than administrative apparatus and a logistic foundation for the beloved IDF.

Religiously based or not, it appears to me that the Torah and more specifically the Halacha does confer legitimacy on an Israeli state.

Certainly, in 10 years from now when the majority of Jews in the world are in Israel that answer will be even more definitive.

Of course there are more serious issues that will need to be resolved once the majority of the world’s Jews reside in Israel. Many things that are non-obligatory or (possibly) d’Rabbanan now (such as Shmittah) will become d’Oraita.

The position you are implying has serious ramifications and implications.

Your question actually questions the legitimacy of the government of various kings from Malchut David who were not "frum". Would Menashe (for instance) not have been a legitimate King in your eyes, and his government nor a legitimate government?

He may have been and done evil, but it would seem that Jews give legitimacy to the government they follow including a Malchut-based government (Power derives from the People).

That a leader/ruler isn’t Torah observant, nor his ruling Torah-true doesn’t necessarily delegitimize his governmental structure (I am not saying that definitively, but it is something that needs to seriously be looked into).

Of course there is no obligation, and more so, one is even forbidden to follow his anti-halachic rulings, for the most simple reason, that in Judaism, even the king isn’t above the law and therefore can’t make laws that abrogate the Torah.

But the structure itself seems to have legitimacy derived from Torah and halacha.