Lol, no, don’t know how you got that from what I said. It’s two separate observations.
1) I’m just saying that settlement couldn’t possibly settle a Polish man’s claim that occurred at least 3 years before Israel was even a nation.
And
2) I’m simply noting the historical fact that’s Nazis were HIGHLY legalistic. Roland Freisler would have approved of such a settlement. Everything Hitler did was 100% legal under Nazi law. So it’s high comedy, or at least irony, that legal sophistry would be used to support a Berlinese claim to the tablet.
I say this nice man gets to keep the tablets.
Here's how I got it:
You said:
that’s some pretty neat legalistic BS
in reference to my post.
Then you said:
The Nazis always a legalistic bunch.
As to your other points:
(1) The Israeli reparations agreement concerns only claims that existed prior to Israel's existence, by definition. If Israel's reparations claims are legitimate - and they are - clearly the date of its sovereign existence is immaterial to those claims.
(2) The Nazis were not "legalistic" - they routinely broke laws, violated treaties, etc. The central tenet of their political ideology was the Fuehrerprinzip - whatever the leader wanted at the moment was law.
This was essential to their purpose: to always keep the population guessing as to what the police or the government would decide to do today. The Nazis were arbitrary and did not follow laws and their arbitrariness kept the population in perpetual fear and dread of what the authorities might capriciously choose to do tomorrow.
Freisler was actually a perfect example of this: he made the law up as he went along, improvising from the bench so he could punish people he thought needed punishing. He was famous for just inventing new crimes on the spot to justify his sentences.
(3) The nice man is dead. His son wants to return the tablet and his daughter wants to keep the tablet.