I'll discuss two things here: (1) the conflict between human rights and national sovereignty, and (2) how it applies to Israel's current status as a nation.
Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government held that the legitimacy of a government depends on how it treats its citizens. It would seem to follow from this that a government that has existed for thousands of years has no moral justification to pass tyrannical laws, while a new government following a revolution does have a justification to rule via the consent of the governed, even if it hasn't existed for very long. This would seem consistent with almost every moral theory, including utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics. Not to mention that national sovereignty usually comes from one nation conquering another nation, and "might makes right" is generally looked down upon as a justification for tyranny. So on most widely-accepted ethical theories, the preservation of human rights is all that matters. Everything else is secondary.
Yet almost every time I've heard the Israel-Palestinian conflict or any other border dispute discussed, this issue rarely comes up. Both sides seem to rest their claims almost entirely on historical events and on which government controlled the land first. But if we accept what I established above, the only issue of relevance would be which government has a better track record on human rights. In that regard, I see little reason to side with Palestine. Even if I concede that Israel's actions in the Gaza Strip are unjustified, it's without question that Palestinians and citizens, in general, are treated better in Israel than they are in Palestine. Even if a two-state solution is best for human rights in the short run, I see no reason to support Palestine invading Israel based on historical claims (which has been advocated for). I'm not convinced of those historical claims in the first place, but even if I were, I don't see why we ought to care about them. I'm not contesting the rights of individual Palestinians to own and maintain land, but I am contesting the right of the current Palestinian government to rule current Israeli territory. You could give many examples of Israel getting its hands dirty, but I don't think you could possibly defend the Palestinian government as more humanitarian overall. I could go on about this, but even if you disagree with my assessment of the situation, it's tangential to my larger point.
If you go back far enough, you can make the case for the national sovereignty of almost any government that has ruled a particular area. But you either get to a government that has taken power by force (in which case, what gives them any justification to rule?) or one that took power via revolution by the people (in which case, why shouldn't we support the country that is more democratic today?) So national sovereignty is largely an appeal to the consent of the governed from many years ago or to might makes right. I'd much prefer a government that is treating its citizens fairly today to one that did many years ago.
