This is such a laughably bad argument. The main premise seems to be that because the scale of chaos and disruption in the process of Pakistan's creation was greater than that of Israel, that it is less legitimate. By that logic, China is the least legitimate country on Earth.
Its secondary premise is that over a thousand years ago, Pakistan was a hindu region. Another bad arguement because quite frankly it does not matter what people of the region that would become Pakistan were over a millennium ago. What matters is, that region was predominantly Muslim at the time of partition. The land encompassing Israel at its creation was not primarily Jewish.
The 3rd argument is that no country named Pakistan ever existed before. Another laughably bad argument because if you want to play that semantics game, no country named India ever existed either prior to the republic. No country named the United States of America ever existed prior to 1776. Guess the US is illegitimate.
No, Jews in general are not foreign to the land of palestine if we reach back to ancient history. But the key difference here is, continuity and what this land looked like demographically at the time of their creation. You can disagree with the premise for Pakistan's creation, but thats a decision the people of that land absolutely had the right to make and its legitimacy is valid. Israel and Pakistan are similar in that all nation-states are artificial constructs, including India. But they are not parallel circumstances.
No one responds to his question because it is severely flawed logic.
And this is all besides the very, very simple realpolitik answer to this question which is that no one dares/cares to question Pakistan's legitimacy.
