I’m not going to address your misuse of facts to further your narrative, it’s gotten way too old. I provided proof that only mulk land was actually owned, and the rest was merely given temporary and conditional usage rights, and you’re back at using that too to argue your claims. They owned land, they didn’t own land, doesn’t matter, the facts aren’t important except how they can be hammered into your narrative.
You are building your argument backwards.
I will point out, however, why Witnessing leads to these sorts of problems when you’re not looking at the facts to build a cohesive narrative, you’re looking at your narrative and trying to plug facts in to it. You can say “pot kettle” all you want, but as you’ve come to this debate not knowing the basis facts, and decided to argue anyways (often even after you’ve been corrected on the facts), this is just boring. Especially since it seems that not only do you not feel you have to learn the facts before you debate them, and that anything that shows you’re wrong is “distorted history”, but even when you’re shown to be flat out mistaken, you’ll repeat the same errors a bit later on. Or you claim that the UN created Israel because they used it as justification… and yet if they’d said that their justification was a God-given right to the land, you wouldn’t be arguing that Israel is divinely created. Created by a magic spell invoked by UN sorcerers? Sure. Created by God? Now that’s just silly.
Case in point, you’re now repeating something that was shown not to be true, and that you admitted wasn’t true, but you’re repeating because it fits into your narrative. After we just did the same dance.
You make the same error here That time saying: "So what exactly precipitated the war of 1948? I was under the impression it started the day after the UN “created” the Israel. "
I pointed out the facts. Rather basic facts, I might add, that one should already have before arguing about a time-line of causality. "No. The UN Partition Plan was approved on November 29, 1947.
On May 14, 1948 the declaration of independence made by Israel was met with a war of extermination by the surrounding Arab states. "
Your response was to try to find new facts to support the same argument you were just making. Sure, your original argument was that the Arabs invaded the day after the UN “created” Israel (which of course never happened in this universe), but when caught on the fact that such a claim is fictional, you then decided that a better argument would be that the Arabs invaded when the Brits left. If your argument is shown to be based on non-facts, just try to switch supporting facts in mid-argument, because your conclusion must be right, or else you wouldn’t be trying to find facts to support it… That’s the very hallmark of an argument that works backwards from a conclusion rather than forwards from facts.
Then you reverted to a modified version of your original claim, that Israel declared independence the day before the UN Partition was supposed to go into effect.
Again I tried to clear up your factual mistakes and pointed out that the Partition wasn’t to take effect until two months after the British withdrew.
You then admitted that you were wrong and were ignorant of the facts (while trying to handwave them away since they didn’t match with your narrative.) When shown that all your facts were wrong, that didn’t matter, as your argument wasn’t based on the facts anyways, but based on a conclusion that was in search of facts to justify it. So you rationalized a new way to support your conclusion “The partition hadn’t technically taken effect when hostilities commenced? There was certainly baptism by fire but the birth (while premature) was from the womb of the UN and the British efforts to facilitate a Jewish homeland in palestine.”
Of course, when shown that the British didn’t try to facilitate a Jewish homeland from about 1922 on, and in fact actively tried to stifle it in a great many ways, you tried to find new facts to support that conclusion, too. When pointed out that a non-binding UN resolution that wasn’t agreed to by both parties, didn’t inform the geography in question, and was never implemented at all couldn’t be said to have done anything, you found way to rationalize that away, too.
And now, of course, you’re using the exact same mistake you already had cleared up for you, and trying to base your Witnessing on the same non-fact. Again.
It was pointed out to you that this was simply fictional. You admitted it wasn’t correct. Now you’re using it, yet again, as support for your narrative.
If the UN tomorrow votes that the sun would rise, why then, the UN caused the sun to rise.
And if the UN tomorrow votes that the sun will rise an hour later than it really will, why, then the UN caused the sun to rise too.
And if the UN tomorrow votes that the sun will not rise and instead the moon will turn neon green and illuminate the world, and the sun rises? Well, the UN caused the sun to rise.
I’m done, Witness away.