Your arguments remain perverse and frivolous, Richard, whatever their motivation, which I am happy to accept is in no way racially based. The opposition of "those in the area" lost all standing when they were outvoted in and by the competently authoritative body of which they themselves had membership. There is not the least reason why any "mandate" from those "in the area", apart from their votes in that body, should have been required for the resolution's implementation, or why they should have had any specific say in the matter. They accepted the UN's authority by the fact of their membership of it, and should have abided by its decision rather than attempting, unsuccessfully, to negate or obviate it by force of arms. Indeed, why the UN did not expel them for such a response to one of its legitimate decisions, in which they had full opportunity to make their opinions known and cast their votes, seems to me to be the question that needs answering. And indeed, they would have done well to accept it, as the borders of the state declared in May 1948 extended no further than those resolved by the UN. The subsequent expansion of territory was brought about by successful defence of their very existence, and legitimate conquest of those who attempted to invade what had been declared their sovereign territory, and remaining, by right of conquest and the absolute and essential considerations of security, in the territory thus gained.

~M~