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.

My comment was about how Shimon Peres was right with regards to foreign support for Israel.

The US have been a military ally of Israel since the late 1960s. Diplomatic support started before independence (the US voted for the partition).

The United Kingdom performed a strange trick during the time when after first creating the territory as a Jewish homeland they ultimately decided to side with their ally Transjordan. (The Arab armies that invaded were trained, armed, and led by the British.)

This conflict saw many strange alliances:

1. The UK, the Arabs under the Hashemites and the Jewish community vs the Ottoman Empire/Turkey

2. The UK vs nationalist Arabs vs Zionists

3. The UK and Zionists vs Nazi Germany and nationalist Arabs

4. The Soviet-Union and Israel vs nationalist Arabs, Hashemites, and the UK

5. Israel, France and UK vs nationalist Arabs (who had US diplomatic support)

6. Israel (with UK diplomatic support) vs nationalist Arabs and Transjordan

7. And finally the current situation: Israel and US vs whoever wants to join