Exactly what conclusion are you talking about? I have made the statement that land changes ownership via wars of conquest. I hope you wouldn't need examples of that? I have also made the statement that the previous statement isn't ALWAYS the case, Japan and Germany in WWII.
Did the Sinai become Israeli's property simply because it was they who conquered it?
Yes.
Also, if your peculiar land changing theory is correct, would Tel Aviv become the property of Palestine, if somehow tomorrow it were captured by waves of Arafat's walking bombs?
Unlikely. But if the Palis would grow some balls, use the millions of dollars other Arab countries give them and buy military equipment, and then invade and take over Israel, yes, they would claim it as their own. Would the US recognize the new country? No. But since all the other countries in the area would, it doesn't matter.
I suspect you're inventing and applying another round of 'neocon foreign policy rules?,which are crafted solely in Israeli's best interest.
Obviously not. I'm just pointing out the facts of history.
These ad hoc rules go something like this, "What's ours is theirs, and what's theirs is theirs."
More words in my mouth. You do a nice job of debating yourself.
Sorry bub, the world isn't buying your swill....
You globalist swine don't intimidate me.