That makes 2 of us.

And as you point out, to her enemies as well.  That is the dichotomy of liberals.  They are supposed to be for peace, but they are mostly responsible for the wars and blood shed this nation has endured and its allies as well.  In other words, they talk out of one side of their mouth and then, either through stupidity or intention, make sure their actions bring about the opposite.

There was, in a very legal and real sense.

The British territory making up today's Israel, "occupied territories" and Jordan was a political unit with a government and bureaucracy. Its official languages were English, Hebrew, and Arabic. English because it was a British territory and Hebrew and Arabic because the population spoke those languages.

(In contrast to many people's claims Jews did live there and they always spoke Hebrew on markets and in public simply because their different native dialects of Arabic and Aramaic were not very universal. There is a Jewish cultural habit of using different languages even at the same place and switch between languages indoors and outdoors.)

The English named the territory "Palestine", after the Roman name. They also made that the official name in Arabic "Filastin". But in Hebrew the name of the territory was "Israel" and the complete legal English name was "Palestine (Land of Israel)" and it can be found as such in official British paperwork.

You can see the three names in three languages on the bank notes, the "Palestine Pounds", that pound remaining the Israeli currency for a while until it was replaced with a new currency named in Hebrew.

But there definitely was an "Israel" before 1948, just like there was a colony of Virginia before 1776. And even before World War 1 there was an "Israel", if not as a political unit.

Israelis never differentiated between the British territory Israel and the independent state of Israel. Legally there was no such huge difference either since the Israei parliament and bureaucracy existed before 1948 as a Jewish parliament and British bureaecracy and since British laws remained in effect until eventually replaced with Israeli law or repealed in favour of Turkish laws (and some remained in effect too).

Legally Israel is simply a country that gained independence from Britain, like Guyana (which existed as British-Guyana before independence) and India (which existed as British-India).

Remember that India was also partitioned several times, as was Ireland.

(Ironically Syria and Iraq were not partitioned despite the fact that they contain more different peoples than Israel.)

My intention was to say no "nation of Israel", as clearly it did not exist at that time.  That is not to say it never existed, just that from the founding of the US until 1948, there was no country called Israel, and hence no government to support or make alliances with.

There was a British territory called Israel and a people called Israel, represented by the Zionist World Congress which the British were allied with.

But it was not a nation to make pacts and treaties with.

Neither were the American rebels when France made a pact with you.

Note that the Arab rebels in the Ottoman Empire were also not a "nation to make pacts and treaties with", yet the British did. (The song Hava Nagila was composed in Tel Aviv to celebrate the victory over the Turks.)

The Indian tribes in America are also not, technically, "nations" using your definition.

However, the Jewish nation was before 1948 seen as a nation to be made treaties with. This why the UN decided to create a Jewish state. Back then the United Nations was meant to represent "nations" rather than countries or regimes.

It was only during the Cold War that the current situation developed where treaties and pacts are only made with countries (and the PLO for some reason).

But traditionally there are many souvreign entities, not just countries (and nations). The Order of Malta is recognised as a souvreign entity by Italy and is neither nation nor state. The Holy Sea (seperate from vatican City) is a souvereign entity.

Either way, both the Jewish nation (and its representatives) and the British territory of Israel (represented by the British administrator) were entities capable of signing treating and forming pacts.

I understand some American states have treaties with each other that go back to the times when they were all British colonies.

Yes it was.  France made a treaty with the government of the colonies at the time.  Israel was doing things by the book and did not have a government before 1948.

I am not condemning Israel, but merely pointing out that to argue that America ignored Israel before or during the great wars is akin to saying the world ignored the USA for the first 150 years of its existence.  The problem is, it did not exist in 1676, nor did Israel in 1941. or 1917.

But A STATE is not the United States.  And yes, there were Indian nations before the USA, but they did not become the USA, nor did the House of Burgesses of Virginia become the United States of America.

You misunderstood my point.

I am not arguing that the US could or should have made a treaty with Israel or the Jews before 1948, I am merely telling you that there was a legal entity named "Israel" before 1948 and, yes, it had a (British-led) government and a (Jewish) parliament. It became the state of Israel when it became independent. Israelis do not differentiate between the two entities.

And the British colony of Virginia became the state of Virginia. Yet as a legal entity it existed before and after 1776.

So yes, Israel existed in 1941. It was a British territory with a government, a currency, an education system (several, actually), a post office and everything.

The Irish state also existed before independence.

But again your fallacy is in thinking that Virginia had control over its external affairs before independence.  it did not.  It could not enter into treaties with other sovereign nations.  Nor could Israel.  For, in your analogy, it was just a state of Britain.  Therefore, treaties were entered into with Britain, but Britain would have had a serious problem with anyone trying to circumvent their authority (after all, they did go to war with the Colonies over just such an issue - among others) and establish treaties with their "state" of Israel.

You keep talking about treaties as if that had anything to do with what I said.

It is not my "fallacy" that you insist on this being about treaties between countries.

Britain had a treaty with the Zionists.

Note that _I_ was never talking about external affairs just about the legal existence of the entity.

Which is what I was pointing out. It was not a legal entity as far as nations were concerned.  It was not self governing, it was governed from another nation.  I used treaties as an example.  The US could do NOTHING for what the land of Israel was (other than invade and occupy it) since there was nothing to talk to or deal with.  The USA had a lot of ties with Britain, so by extension they did have relations with it.  And if you are wondering what the USA did for Britain during the great war, I can suggest some good WWII books.

You are still talking about what the US could or couldn't do. I wasn't.

Peres was.

No, he wasn't. He was talking about how Israel fought and won her wars alone. He wasn't insinuating that the US should have made a treaty with the British territory or the Zionists.

I was just telling you that Israel existed, as a British territory, before 1948.

And it had a parliament too. What became the Knesset was the "Assembly of Representatives" founded in 1920. It was the legal representative of the Jewish community in the territory. It's working language was Hebrew.

What started it all.  Clearly someone does not like the fact that the US has only been an ally of Israel since its existence as a nation.  Again, my statement stands.