All The News Anti-Palestinian Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss

[Hollie]

In the 1924 Anglo American Convention the U.S. agreed to support Great Britain as a Mandatory so long as the Mandatory abided by the San Remo Resolution. The sole purpose of the Resolution regarding Palestine was:

1. Drawing the borders of Palestine
   
2. Reconstituting Palestine as a National Homeland for the Jewish People worldwide
   
3. Recognizing the Jewish People's historical connection to the land

There was not even one word in the Mandate or the Anglo American convention about creating an Arab land in Palestine.

So then, why did Britain give Palestinian citizenship to all of the Palestinians who lived in Palestine?

I don't see any problem as long as they abide by all their obligations.
That Palestine was to become Jewish National Homeland was engraved in international law, which Britain attempted to thwart by banning Jews from their country, while giving most of its' territory to a separate Arab state.

The British Mandatory was not a sovereign. All its rights and obligations relating to Palestine, emanated from the Mandate of Palestine. The Mandatory was a trustee for the League of Nations, and it was not given the power to take any steps which violated the terms of the Mandate. It could not change the terms of the Mandate at its pleasure, as it did in the following two cases:

1. Ceding 77.5 % of Palestine to Trans Jordan (in 1922)
   
2. Ceding the Golan to Syria (in 1923)

The Mandatory violated article 5 & article 27 of the Mandate when it ceded 77.5% of Palestine to TransJordan and the Golan to Syria:

ART. 5. "The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power."
ART. 27: The Mandatory had no right to amend the Mandate terms without the full consent of the League of Nations or its Mandates Commission.

ARTICLE 20.
The Members of the League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.

In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations.

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations

Yes, both the San Remo and the Palestine Mandate are documents based on that covenant.
Neither mention anything about political rights of Arabs living there.

According to international law, the Jewish people are the sole beneficiary of Self-Determination in the land that was Mandatory Palestine. The rights of the Jewish People to Palestine are enshrined in three legally binding international treaties. These rights have not expired and are still in full force and effect.

In fact it's even enshrined in US law:
Any attempt to negate the Jewish people's right to Palestine — Eretz-Israel — and to deny them access and control in the area designated for the Jewish people by the League of Nations is an actionable infringement of both international law and the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution), which dictates that Treaties "shall be the supreme Law of the Land".

It is not as simple as all that.

The land of Palestine was transferred to Palestine by treaty. That territory was defined by international borders.

The Palestinians became citizens of Palestine by international law, by treaty, and by domestic law. Why did the Treaty of Lausanne give citizenship to the Palestinians? Because that is the law. Why did the British give citizenship to the Palestinians? Because that is the law.

Treaties are legal instruments. They must conform to international law. No valid treaty can violate the inalienable rights of a people.

You are, as usual, attempting to make the false claim that the Treaty of Lausanne created your Magical Kingdom of Pal’istan. The Treaty of Lausanne did not create a sovereign or legal entity of Pal’istan.

You are proceeding on a false premise.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

In the 1924 Anglo American Convention the U.S. agreed to support Great Britain as a Mandatory so long as the Mandatory abided by the San Remo Resolution. The sole purpose of the Resolution regarding Palestine was:

1. Drawing the borders of Palestine
   
2. Reconstituting Palestine as a National Homeland for the Jewish People worldwide
   
3. Recognizing the Jewish People's historical connection to the land

There was not even one word in the Mandate or the Anglo American convention about creating an Arab land in Palestine.

So then, why did Britain give Palestinian citizenship to all of the Palestinians who lived in Palestine?

I don't see any problem as long as they abide by all their obligations.
That Palestine was to become Jewish National Homeland was engraved in international law, which Britain attempted to thwart by banning Jews from their country, while giving most of its' territory to a separate Arab state.

The British Mandatory was not a sovereign. All its rights and obligations relating to Palestine, emanated from the Mandate of Palestine. The Mandatory was a trustee for the League of Nations, and it was not given the power to take any steps which violated the terms of the Mandate. It could not change the terms of the Mandate at its pleasure, as it did in the following two cases:

1. Ceding 77.5 % of Palestine to Trans Jordan (in 1922)
   
2. Ceding the Golan to Syria (in 1923)

The Mandatory violated article 5 & article 27 of the Mandate when it ceded 77.5% of Palestine to TransJordan and the Golan to Syria:

ART. 5. "The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power."
ART. 27: The Mandatory had no right to amend the Mandate terms without the full consent of the League of Nations or its Mandates Commission.

ARTICLE 20.
The Members of the League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.

In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations.

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations

Yes, both the San Remo and the Palestine Mandate are documents based on that covenant.
Neither mention anything about political rights of Arabs living there.

According to international law, the Jewish people are the sole beneficiary of Self-Determination in the land that was Mandatory Palestine. The rights of the Jewish People to Palestine are enshrined in three legally binding international treaties. These rights have not expired and are still in full force and effect.

In fact it's even enshrined in US law:
Any attempt to negate the Jewish people's right to Palestine — Eretz-Israel — and to deny them access and control in the area designated for the Jewish people by the League of Nations is an actionable infringement of both international law and the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution), which dictates that Treaties "shall be the supreme Law of the Land".

It is not as simple as all that.

The land of Palestine was transferred to Palestine by treaty. That territory was defined by international borders.

The Palestinians became citizens of Palestine by international law, by treaty, and by domestic law. Why did the Treaty of Lausanne give citizenship to the Palestinians? Because that is the law. Why did the British give citizenship to the Palestinians? Because that is the law.

Treaties are legal instruments. They must conform to international law. No valid treaty can violate the inalienable rights of a people.

The land of Palestine was transferred to Palestine by treaty.


The land of Palestine was transferred to Israel by treaty.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: All The News Anti-Palestinian Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You are incorrect.

The land of Palestine was transferred to Palestine by treaty.

(COMMENT)

WRONG:

• Article 16, Treaty of Lausanne •

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.​

That territory was defined by international borders.

(COMMENT)

The boundaries between the territories under the French Mandates of Syria and Lebanon on the one hand and the British Mandates of Mesopotamia and Palestine on the other were defined by the Franco-British Convention, 23 December 1920.

The boundaries (what would eventually become the first iteration of international borders) were, in essence, an established agreement solely between two of the Allied Powers.

Those boundaries have since been modified.

The Palestinians became citizens of Palestine by international law, by treaty, and by domestic law. Why did the Treaty of Lausanne give citizenship to the Palestinians? Because that is the law. Why did the British give citizenship to the Palestinians? Because that is the law.

(COMMENT)

The Treaty of Lausanne did not actually grant citizenship. The Treaty defined the assignment of nationality (Article 30) which was then used to give legal standing (in the case of the Territory under the Mandate for Palestine) to the Mandatory for authority placed in the (League of Nations) Palestine Order in Council, Election Law, and Citizenship Order.

Treaties are legal instruments. They must conform to international law. No valid treaty can violate the inalienable rights of a people.

(COMMENT)

Yes, treaties are legal instruments. In the first half of the 20th Century, including the period between 1900 and 1930 (which is the timeframe being discussed here), there was "NO" Universally recognized treaty law. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) was not adopted until 1969.

The codification of (what would include today to be) "inalienable rights" was reaffirmed from the 1969 VCLT (Preamble) in UN Resolution A/RES/3236 (XXIX) 22 November 1974.

To my knowledge, there is no standing case before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) (1945 to Present) of the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) (1921 to 1939) pertaining to any of the implied complaints between the Authority of the Allied Powers (in the 20th Century → forward).

Finally, I find your implied violations of "International Law" (circa 1900 - 1930) to be wholly unsubstantiated by any clear facts. In fact, it is totally unclear what you are using as "International Law" for that time period.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

It is not as simple as all that.

The land of Palestine was transferred to Palestine by treaty. That territory was defined by international borders.

The Palestinians became citizens of Palestine by international law, by treaty, and by domestic law. Why did the Treaty of Lausanne give citizenship to the Palestinians? Because that is the law. Why did the British give citizenship to the Palestinians? Because that is the law.

Treaties are legal instruments. They must conform to international law. No valid treaty can violate the inalienable rights of a people.

The territory was not "transferred" to anyone, at any time. There was no sovereign to transfer it to. Its not like one country ceding it in treaty and another taking it up. The territory under the Mandate for Palestine (like all the other Mandates) was under Mandate for exactly the reason that there was no sovereign to pass it to. The point of a Mandate is to govern in trust until the people are capable of self-determination and government themselves. This whole concept of "transfer of territory' is a red herring you keep throwing up as a distraction from the real issues.

What WAS part of the legal documentation of the time was the beneficiary of the territory of Palestine -- that is -- the people who were to have self-determination in that territory, the people for whom the British held the territory in trust. The legal documentation of the time (which is still in force today and can not be abrogated) tells us that it was the Jewish people. Further, the documentation tells us that the Jewish people became the beneficiaries of that territory by RIGHT due to their historical sovereignty in that territory. No other peoples are mentioned. So, the STARTING point of the whole conversation is that the territory belongs to the Jewish people, by right, by law.

Now, it IS true that all of the residents of the territory, and all the Jewish immigrants became citizens of what was then called "Palestine" (as a territorial designation -- NOT as a sovereign). Aren't some still citizens of Palestine? And some citizens of Palestine by its new sovereign name -- Israel?

The question you should be asking is why two different citizenships developed in the territory.

 

[rylah]

In the 1924 Anglo American Convention the U.S. agreed to support Great Britain as a Mandatory so long as the Mandatory abided by the San Remo Resolution. The sole purpose of the Resolution regarding Palestine was:

1. Drawing the borders of Palestine
   
2. Reconstituting Palestine as a National Homeland for the Jewish People worldwide
   
3. Recognizing the Jewish People's historical connection to the land

There was not even one word in the Mandate or the Anglo American convention about creating an Arab land in Palestine.

So then, why did Britain give Palestinian citizenship to all of the Palestinians who lived in Palestine?

I don't see any problem as long as they abide by all their obligations.
That Palestine was to become Jewish National Homeland was engraved in international law, which Britain attempted to thwart by banning Jews from their country, while giving most of its' territory to a separate Arab state.

The British Mandatory was not a sovereign. All its rights and obligations relating to Palestine, emanated from the Mandate of Palestine. The Mandatory was a trustee for the League of Nations, and it was not given the power to take any steps which violated the terms of the Mandate. It could not change the terms of the Mandate at its pleasure, as it did in the following two cases:

1. Ceding 77.5 % of Palestine to Trans Jordan (in 1922)
   
2. Ceding the Golan to Syria (in 1923)

The Mandatory violated article 5 & article 27 of the Mandate when it ceded 77.5% of Palestine to TransJordan and the Golan to Syria:

ART. 5. "The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power."
ART. 27: The Mandatory had no right to amend the Mandate terms without the full consent of the League of Nations or its Mandates Commission.

ARTICLE 20.
The Members of the League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.

In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations.

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations

Yes, both the San Remo and the Palestine Mandate are documents based on that covenant.
Neither mention anything about political rights of Arabs living there.

According to international law, the Jewish people are the sole beneficiary of Self-Determination in the land that was Mandatory Palestine. The rights of the Jewish People to Palestine are enshrined in three legally binding international treaties. These rights have not expired and are still in full force and effect.

In fact it's even enshrined in US law:
Any attempt to negate the Jewish people's right to Palestine — Eretz-Israel — and to deny them access and control in the area designated for the Jewish people by the League of Nations is an actionable infringement of both international law and the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution), which dictates that Treaties "shall be the supreme Law of the Land".

It is not as simple as all that.

The land of Palestine was transferred to Palestine by treaty. That territory was defined by international borders.

The Palestinians became citizens of Palestine by international law, by treaty, and by domestic law. Why did the Treaty of Lausanne give citizenship to the Palestinians? Because that is the law. Why did the British give citizenship to the Palestinians? Because that is the law.

Treaties are legal instruments. They must conform to international law. No valid treaty can violate the inalienable rights of a people.

"The land of Palestine was transferred to Palestine by treaty. That territory was defined by international borders."
-- Yes and all of that specifically defined the sovereign boundaries of the Jewish National Home.

The Palestinians became citizens of Palestine by international law, by treaty, and by domestic law.
-- Yes, and in violation of international law, the Jewish people were precluded from exercising this right.

Why did the Treaty of Lausanne give citizenship to the Palestinians? Because that is the law. Why did the British give citizenship to the Palestinians? Because that is the law.
-- Treaty of Lausannne only ensured that former Turkish subjects would become citizens of future local states. Previous treaties that preceded Lausanne, already established Palestine as a Jewish National Home, this was the sole source of Britain's authority to issue Palestinian citizenship.

Jewish National Home is international law, and a Palestinian treaty.

"Treaties are legal instruments. They must conform to international law. No valid treaty can violate the inalienable rights of a people."
-- Treaties ARE international law.
I agree, no valid treaty can violate the inalienable rights of the Jewish Nation in any part of Palestine.

 

[Shusha]

No valid treaty can violate the inalienable rights of a people.

And the "inalienable rights of a people" are defined, where, exactly, in law?

Link?

 

[USAF 2023]

No valid treaty can violate the inalienable rights of a people.

And the "inalienable rights of a people" are defined, where, exactly, in law?

Link?

Does he mean a Valid Treaty isn’t “ Valid??”

 

[USAF 2023]

No valid treaty can violate the inalienable rights of a people.

And the "inalienable rights of a people" are defined, where, exactly, in law?

Link?

Does he mean a Valid Treaty isn’t “ Valid??”

Islamization of East Jerusalem under Jordanian occupation - Wikipedia

You Know, I THINK HE'S RIGHT!!!!!
No " treaty" can invalidate the Rights of the Israelis to E.Jerusalem. GOOD JOB!!!!

 

[Shusha]

No valid treaty can violate the inalienable rights of a people.

And the "inalienable rights of a people" are defined, where, exactly, in law?

Link?

Does he mean a Valid Treaty isn’t “ Valid??”

If he doesn't like what a treaty says, it must be invalid. Just like he doesn't like that Israel exists so it must not.

 

[USAF 2023]

No valid treaty can violate the inalienable rights of a people.

And the "inalienable rights of a people" are defined, where, exactly, in law?

Link?

Does he mean a Valid Treaty isn’t “ Valid??”

If he doesn't like what a treaty says, it must be invalid. Just like he doesn't like that Israel exists so it must not.

He will NOT acknowledge that Jordan doing what they did was in CONTRADICTION to the “ Armistice Agreement “ that they signed.
Israel will NEVER let that territory be under Arab domain again

 

[P F Tinmore]

No valid treaty can violate the inalienable rights of a people.

And the "inalienable rights of a people" are defined, where, exactly, in law?

Link?

Basic universal, inalienable rights.

• The right to self determination without external interference.
• The right to independence and sovereignty.
• The right to territorial integrity.

These can be found in various UN documents sometimes directly applied to the Palestinians.

 

[P F Tinmore]

So then, why did Britain give Palestinian citizenship to all of the Palestinians who lived in Palestine?

I don't see any problem as long as they abide by all their obligations.
That Palestine was to become Jewish National Homeland was engraved in international law, which Britain attempted to thwart by banning Jews from their country, while giving most of its' territory to a separate Arab state.

The British Mandatory was not a sovereign. All its rights and obligations relating to Palestine, emanated from the Mandate of Palestine. The Mandatory was a trustee for the League of Nations, and it was not given the power to take any steps which violated the terms of the Mandate. It could not change the terms of the Mandate at its pleasure, as it did in the following two cases:

1. Ceding 77.5 % of Palestine to Trans Jordan (in 1922)
   
2. Ceding the Golan to Syria (in 1923)

The Mandatory violated article 5 & article 27 of the Mandate when it ceded 77.5% of Palestine to TransJordan and the Golan to Syria:

ART. 5. "The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power."
ART. 27: The Mandatory had no right to amend the Mandate terms without the full consent of the League of Nations or its Mandates Commission.

ARTICLE 20.
The Members of the League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.

In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations.

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations

Yes, both the San Remo and the Palestine Mandate are documents based on that covenant.
Neither mention anything about political rights of Arabs living there.

According to international law, the Jewish people are the sole beneficiary of Self-Determination in the land that was Mandatory Palestine. The rights of the Jewish People to Palestine are enshrined in three legally binding international treaties. These rights have not expired and are still in full force and effect.

In fact it's even enshrined in US law:
Any attempt to negate the Jewish people's right to Palestine — Eretz-Israel — and to deny them access and control in the area designated for the Jewish people by the League of Nations is an actionable infringement of both international law and the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution), which dictates that Treaties "shall be the supreme Law of the Land".

It is not as simple as all that.

The land of Palestine was transferred to Palestine by treaty. That territory was defined by international borders.

The Palestinians became citizens of Palestine by international law, by treaty, and by domestic law. Why did the Treaty of Lausanne give citizenship to the Palestinians? Because that is the law. Why did the British give citizenship to the Palestinians? Because that is the law.

Treaties are legal instruments. They must conform to international law. No valid treaty can violate the inalienable rights of a people.

"The land of Palestine was transferred to Palestine by treaty. That territory was defined by international borders."
-- Yes and all of that specifically defined the sovereign boundaries of the Jewish National Home.

The Palestinians became citizens of Palestine by international law, by treaty, and by domestic law.
-- Yes, and in violation of international law, the Jewish people were precluded from exercising this right.

Why did the Treaty of Lausanne give citizenship to the Palestinians? Because that is the law. Why did the British give citizenship to the Palestinians? Because that is the law.
-- Treaty of Lausannne only ensured that former Turkish subjects would become citizens of future local states. Previous treaties that preceded Lausanne, already established Palestine as a Jewish National Home, this was the sole source of Britain's authority to issue Palestinian citizenship.

Jewish National Home is international law, and a Palestinian treaty.

"Treaties are legal instruments. They must conform to international law. No valid treaty can violate the inalienable rights of a people."
-- Treaties ARE international law.
I agree, no valid treaty can violate the inalienable rights of the Jewish Nation in any part of Palestine.

No links?

 

[P F Tinmore]

It is not as simple as all that.

The land of Palestine was transferred to Palestine by treaty. That territory was defined by international borders.

The Palestinians became citizens of Palestine by international law, by treaty, and by domestic law. Why did the Treaty of Lausanne give citizenship to the Palestinians? Because that is the law. Why did the British give citizenship to the Palestinians? Because that is the law.

Treaties are legal instruments. They must conform to international law. No valid treaty can violate the inalienable rights of a people.

The territory was not "transferred" to anyone, at any time. There was no sovereign to transfer it to. Its not like one country ceding it in treaty and another taking it up. The territory under the Mandate for Palestine (like all the other Mandates) was under Mandate for exactly the reason that there was no sovereign to pass it to. The point of a Mandate is to govern in trust until the people are capable of self-determination and government themselves. This whole concept of "transfer of territory' is a red herring you keep throwing up as a distraction from the real issues.

What WAS part of the legal documentation of the time was the beneficiary of the territory of Palestine -- that is -- the people who were to have self-determination in that territory, the people for whom the British held the territory in trust. The legal documentation of the time (which is still in force today and can not be abrogated) tells us that it was the Jewish people. Further, the documentation tells us that the Jewish people became the beneficiaries of that territory by RIGHT due to their historical sovereignty in that territory. No other peoples are mentioned. So, the STARTING point of the whole conversation is that the territory belongs to the Jewish people, by right, by law.

Now, it IS true that all of the residents of the territory, and all the Jewish immigrants became citizens of what was then called "Palestine" (as a territorial designation -- NOT as a sovereign). Aren't some still citizens of Palestine? And some citizens of Palestine by its new sovereign name -- Israel?

The question you should be asking is why two different citizenships developed in the territory.

The territory was not "transferred" to anyone, at any time.

It was. You are bouncing around like a football trying to make a point that is not there.

 

[P F Tinmore]

It is not as simple as all that.

The land of Palestine was transferred to Palestine by treaty. That territory was defined by international borders.

The Palestinians became citizens of Palestine by international law, by treaty, and by domestic law. Why did the Treaty of Lausanne give citizenship to the Palestinians? Because that is the law. Why did the British give citizenship to the Palestinians? Because that is the law.

Treaties are legal instruments. They must conform to international law. No valid treaty can violate the inalienable rights of a people.

The territory was not "transferred" to anyone, at any time. There was no sovereign to transfer it to. Its not like one country ceding it in treaty and another taking it up. The territory under the Mandate for Palestine (like all the other Mandates) was under Mandate for exactly the reason that there was no sovereign to pass it to. The point of a Mandate is to govern in trust until the people are capable of self-determination and government themselves. This whole concept of "transfer of territory' is a red herring you keep throwing up as a distraction from the real issues.

What WAS part of the legal documentation of the time was the beneficiary of the territory of Palestine -- that is -- the people who were to have self-determination in that territory, the people for whom the British held the territory in trust. The legal documentation of the time (which is still in force today and can not be abrogated) tells us that it was the Jewish people. Further, the documentation tells us that the Jewish people became the beneficiaries of that territory by RIGHT due to their historical sovereignty in that territory. No other peoples are mentioned. So, the STARTING point of the whole conversation is that the territory belongs to the Jewish people, by right, by law.

Now, it IS true that all of the residents of the territory, and all the Jewish immigrants became citizens of what was then called "Palestine" (as a territorial designation -- NOT as a sovereign). Aren't some still citizens of Palestine? And some citizens of Palestine by its new sovereign name -- Israel?

The question you should be asking is why two different citizenships developed in the territory.

became citizens of what was then called "Palestine" (as a territorial designation -- NOT as a sovereign).

You wouldn't have a link for that, would you?

Of course not.

 

[P F Tinmore]

So then, why did Britain give Palestinian citizenship to all of the Palestinians who lived in Palestine?

I don't see any problem as long as they abide by all their obligations.
That Palestine was to become Jewish National Homeland was engraved in international law, which Britain attempted to thwart by banning Jews from their country, while giving most of its' territory to a separate Arab state.

The British Mandatory was not a sovereign. All its rights and obligations relating to Palestine, emanated from the Mandate of Palestine. The Mandatory was a trustee for the League of Nations, and it was not given the power to take any steps which violated the terms of the Mandate. It could not change the terms of the Mandate at its pleasure, as it did in the following two cases:

1. Ceding 77.5 % of Palestine to Trans Jordan (in 1922)
   
2. Ceding the Golan to Syria (in 1923)

The Mandatory violated article 5 & article 27 of the Mandate when it ceded 77.5% of Palestine to TransJordan and the Golan to Syria:

ART. 5. "The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power."
ART. 27: The Mandatory had no right to amend the Mandate terms without the full consent of the League of Nations or its Mandates Commission.

ARTICLE 20.
The Members of the League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.

In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations.

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations

Yes, both the San Remo and the Palestine Mandate are documents based on that covenant.
Neither mention anything about political rights of Arabs living there.

According to international law, the Jewish people are the sole beneficiary of Self-Determination in the land that was Mandatory Palestine. The rights of the Jewish People to Palestine are enshrined in three legally binding international treaties. These rights have not expired and are still in full force and effect.

In fact it's even enshrined in US law:
Any attempt to negate the Jewish people's right to Palestine — Eretz-Israel — and to deny them access and control in the area designated for the Jewish people by the League of Nations is an actionable infringement of both international law and the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution), which dictates that Treaties "shall be the supreme Law of the Land".

It is not as simple as all that.

The land of Palestine was transferred to Palestine by treaty. That territory was defined by international borders.

The Palestinians became citizens of Palestine by international law, by treaty, and by domestic law. Why did the Treaty of Lausanne give citizenship to the Palestinians? Because that is the law. Why did the British give citizenship to the Palestinians? Because that is the law.

Treaties are legal instruments. They must conform to international law. No valid treaty can violate the inalienable rights of a people.

You are, as usual, attempting to make the false claim that the Treaty of Lausanne created your Magical Kingdom of Pal’istan. The Treaty of Lausanne did not create a sovereign or legal entity of Pal’istan.

You are proceeding on a false premise.

I never said that.

 

[Hollie]

I don't see any problem as long as they abide by all their obligations.
That Palestine was to become Jewish National Homeland was engraved in international law, which Britain attempted to thwart by banning Jews from their country, while giving most of its' territory to a separate Arab state.

The British Mandatory was not a sovereign. All its rights and obligations relating to Palestine, emanated from the Mandate of Palestine. The Mandatory was a trustee for the League of Nations, and it was not given the power to take any steps which violated the terms of the Mandate. It could not change the terms of the Mandate at its pleasure, as it did in the following two cases:

1. Ceding 77.5 % of Palestine to Trans Jordan (in 1922)
   
2. Ceding the Golan to Syria (in 1923)

The Mandatory violated article 5 & article 27 of the Mandate when it ceded 77.5% of Palestine to TransJordan and the Golan to Syria:

ART. 5. "The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power."
ART. 27: The Mandatory had no right to amend the Mandate terms without the full consent of the League of Nations or its Mandates Commission.

ARTICLE 20.
The Members of the League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.

In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations.

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations

Yes, both the San Remo and the Palestine Mandate are documents based on that covenant.
Neither mention anything about political rights of Arabs living there.

According to international law, the Jewish people are the sole beneficiary of Self-Determination in the land that was Mandatory Palestine. The rights of the Jewish People to Palestine are enshrined in three legally binding international treaties. These rights have not expired and are still in full force and effect.

In fact it's even enshrined in US law:
Any attempt to negate the Jewish people's right to Palestine — Eretz-Israel — and to deny them access and control in the area designated for the Jewish people by the League of Nations is an actionable infringement of both international law and the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution), which dictates that Treaties "shall be the supreme Law of the Land".

It is not as simple as all that.

The land of Palestine was transferred to Palestine by treaty. That territory was defined by international borders.

The Palestinians became citizens of Palestine by international law, by treaty, and by domestic law. Why did the Treaty of Lausanne give citizenship to the Palestinians? Because that is the law. Why did the British give citizenship to the Palestinians? Because that is the law.

Treaties are legal instruments. They must conform to international law. No valid treaty can violate the inalienable rights of a people.

You are, as usual, attempting to make the false claim that the Treaty of Lausanne created your Magical Kingdom of Pal’istan. The Treaty of Lausanne did not create a sovereign or legal entity of Pal’istan.

You are proceeding on a false premise.

I never said that.

Link?

 

[P F Tinmore]

So then, why did Britain give Palestinian citizenship to all of the Palestinians who lived in Palestine?

"Britian" did no such thing. The convention of the time was, and is, that citizenship in a new sovereign passes automatically from the old sovereign. Thus did the citizenship pass from the Ottoman Empire to the new sovereign, Israel.

The question you should be asking is why some Arabs lost citizenship in the new sovereign State.

The convention of the time was, and is, that citizenship in a new sovereign passes automatically from the old sovereign.

Israel violated that provision of international law.

 

[rylah]

I don't see any problem as long as they abide by all their obligations.
That Palestine was to become Jewish National Homeland was engraved in international law, which Britain attempted to thwart by banning Jews from their country, while giving most of its' territory to a separate Arab state.

The British Mandatory was not a sovereign. All its rights and obligations relating to Palestine, emanated from the Mandate of Palestine. The Mandatory was a trustee for the League of Nations, and it was not given the power to take any steps which violated the terms of the Mandate. It could not change the terms of the Mandate at its pleasure, as it did in the following two cases:

1. Ceding 77.5 % of Palestine to Trans Jordan (in 1922)
   
2. Ceding the Golan to Syria (in 1923)

The Mandatory violated article 5 & article 27 of the Mandate when it ceded 77.5% of Palestine to TransJordan and the Golan to Syria:

ART. 5. "The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power."
ART. 27: The Mandatory had no right to amend the Mandate terms without the full consent of the League of Nations or its Mandates Commission.

ARTICLE 20.
The Members of the League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.

In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations.

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations

Yes, both the San Remo and the Palestine Mandate are documents based on that covenant.
Neither mention anything about political rights of Arabs living there.

According to international law, the Jewish people are the sole beneficiary of Self-Determination in the land that was Mandatory Palestine. The rights of the Jewish People to Palestine are enshrined in three legally binding international treaties. These rights have not expired and are still in full force and effect.

In fact it's even enshrined in US law:
Any attempt to negate the Jewish people's right to Palestine — Eretz-Israel — and to deny them access and control in the area designated for the Jewish people by the League of Nations is an actionable infringement of both international law and the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution), which dictates that Treaties "shall be the supreme Law of the Land".

It is not as simple as all that.

The land of Palestine was transferred to Palestine by treaty. That territory was defined by international borders.

The Palestinians became citizens of Palestine by international law, by treaty, and by domestic law. Why did the Treaty of Lausanne give citizenship to the Palestinians? Because that is the law. Why did the British give citizenship to the Palestinians? Because that is the law.

Treaties are legal instruments. They must conform to international law. No valid treaty can violate the inalienable rights of a people.

"The land of Palestine was transferred to Palestine by treaty. That territory was defined by international borders."
-- Yes and all of that specifically defined the sovereign boundaries of the Jewish National Home.

The Palestinians became citizens of Palestine by international law, by treaty, and by domestic law.
-- Yes, and in violation of international law, the Jewish people were precluded from exercising this right.

Why did the Treaty of Lausanne give citizenship to the Palestinians? Because that is the law. Why did the British give citizenship to the Palestinians? Because that is the law.
-- Treaty of Lausannne only ensured that former Turkish subjects would become citizens of future local states. Previous treaties that preceded Lausanne, already established Palestine as a Jewish National Home, this was the sole source of Britain's authority to issue Palestinian citizenship.

Jewish National Home is international law, and a Palestinian treaty.

"Treaties are legal instruments. They must conform to international law. No valid treaty can violate the inalienable rights of a people."
-- Treaties ARE international law.
I agree, no valid treaty can violate the inalienable rights of the Jewish Nation in any part of Palestine.

No links?

The 1920 San Remo Resolution

This was passed by the San Remo Supreme Council. This council was given the power of disposition by the Great Powers and was convened for the purpose of dividing what was the Ottoman Empire, i.e, redrawing the borders of the Middle East.
The relevant resolution reads as follows:

"The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust... the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory [authority that] will be responsible for putting into effect the [Balfour] declaration... in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people."

Treaties themselves have no statute of limitations, so their rights go on ad infinitum.
Therefore any borders assigned by treaty to Palestine are sovereign borders of a Jewish Nation.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It is not as simple as all that.

The land of Palestine was transferred to Palestine by treaty. That territory was defined by international borders.

The Palestinians became citizens of Palestine by international law, by treaty, and by domestic law. Why did the Treaty of Lausanne give citizenship to the Palestinians? Because that is the law. Why did the British give citizenship to the Palestinians? Because that is the law.

Treaties are legal instruments. They must conform to international law. No valid treaty can violate the inalienable rights of a people.

The territory was not "transferred" to anyone, at any time. There was no sovereign to transfer it to. Its not like one country ceding it in treaty and another taking it up. The territory under the Mandate for Palestine (like all the other Mandates) was under Mandate for exactly the reason that there was no sovereign to pass it to. The point of a Mandate is to govern in trust until the people are capable of self-determination and government themselves. This whole concept of "transfer of territory' is a red herring you keep throwing up as a distraction from the real issues.

What WAS part of the legal documentation of the time was the beneficiary of the territory of Palestine -- that is -- the people who were to have self-determination in that territory, the people for whom the British held the territory in trust. The legal documentation of the time (which is still in force today and can not be abrogated) tells us that it was the Jewish people. Further, the documentation tells us that the Jewish people became the beneficiaries of that territory by RIGHT due to their historical sovereignty in that territory. No other peoples are mentioned. So, the STARTING point of the whole conversation is that the territory belongs to the Jewish people, by right, by law.

Now, it IS true that all of the residents of the territory, and all the Jewish immigrants became citizens of what was then called "Palestine" (as a territorial designation -- NOT as a sovereign). Aren't some still citizens of Palestine? And some citizens of Palestine by its new sovereign name -- Israel?

The question you should be asking is why two different citizenships developed in the territory.

became citizens of what was then called "Palestine" (as a territorial designation -- NOT as a sovereign).

You wouldn't have a link for that, would you?

Of course not.

You need a link to, "Palestine isn't a country"?

 

[USAF 2023]

It is not as simple as all that.

The land of Palestine was transferred to Palestine by treaty. That territory was defined by international borders.

The Palestinians became citizens of Palestine by international law, by treaty, and by domestic law. Why did the Treaty of Lausanne give citizenship to the Palestinians? Because that is the law. Why did the British give citizenship to the Palestinians? Because that is the law.

Treaties are legal instruments. They must conform to international law. No valid treaty can violate the inalienable rights of a people.

The territory was not "transferred" to anyone, at any time. There was no sovereign to transfer it to. Its not like one country ceding it in treaty and another taking it up. The territory under the Mandate for Palestine (like all the other Mandates) was under Mandate for exactly the reason that there was no sovereign to pass it to. The point of a Mandate is to govern in trust until the people are capable of self-determination and government themselves. This whole concept of "transfer of territory' is a red herring you keep throwing up as a distraction from the real issues.

What WAS part of the legal documentation of the time was the beneficiary of the territory of Palestine -- that is -- the people who were to have self-determination in that territory, the people for whom the British held the territory in trust. The legal documentation of the time (which is still in force today and can not be abrogated) tells us that it was the Jewish people. Further, the documentation tells us that the Jewish people became the beneficiaries of that territory by RIGHT due to their historical sovereignty in that territory. No other peoples are mentioned. So, the STARTING point of the whole conversation is that the territory belongs to the Jewish people, by right, by law.

Now, it IS true that all of the residents of the territory, and all the Jewish immigrants became citizens of what was then called "Palestine" (as a territorial designation -- NOT as a sovereign). Aren't some still citizens of Palestine? And some citizens of Palestine by its new sovereign name -- Israel?

The question you should be asking is why two different citizenships developed in the territory.

became citizens of what was then called "Palestine" (as a territorial designation -- NOT as a sovereign).

You wouldn't have a link for that, would you?

Of course not.

You need a link to, "Palestine isn't a country"?

I provided a link which stated the Arabs recognized Jordan’s Sovereignty over the W. Bank and E. Jerusalem before 1950 and at that time the land was OFFICIALLY recognized as part of Jordan but of course there is no response.