Boycott Israel

[P F Tinmore]

How's about addressing the legal document the Mandate for Palestine which gives the legal right for the Jewish people to enact sovereignty over land.

No it doesn't.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Technically, the Arab Palestinians, who at every opportunity to participate in the governing, declined to do so.

Not true. Every effort of the Palestinians to exercise their right to self determination was beat down by the British. Their institutions were closed. Their leaders were either jailed, exiled, or killed.

Oh yeah, and it was Palestinian incompetence that kept them from developing an independent state.

 

[Hollie]

Technically, the Arab Palestinians, who at every opportunity to participate in the governing, declined to do so.

Not true. Every effort of the Palestinians to exercise their right to self determination was beat down by the British. Their institutions were closed. Their leaders were either jailed, exiled, or killed.

Oh yeah, and it was Palestinian incompetence that kept them from developing an independent state.

That’s quite a list of conspiracy theories.

 

[Hollie]

What other people would give away part of their country? Give me some names.

You're kidding, right?

North and South Korea. Czech Republic and Slovakia. Bosnia & Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Slovena, Kosovo. Sudan and South Sudan. India and Pakistan and Bangladesh. USSR. Ireland.

Um. The Ottoman Empire and Turkey.

Also places where it hasn't happened yet (and may not): Canada and Quebec. Spain and Catalonia. China and Tibet. UK and Scotland. Iraq and Kurdistan. The US and Hawaii.


How many did you want me to name?

Not the same thing. None of those had to chop off part of their countries to give to foreign settlers.

Some portion of your invented “country of Pal’istan” was chopped off?

What portion did the Islamic settlers / invaders chop off?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Boycott Israel
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

Technically, the Mandate is a legal instrument, and place is called the "territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies" by the Palestine Order-in-Council, hereinafter described as Palestine." But I find it very odd that since everyone in this discussion group knows what was meant. You comment added nothing to the content.

No, you have that wrong. The Order in Council was when Britain occupied Turkish territory.

The Mandate could not apply until after Turkey ceded the land to Palestine. That changed the rules for British control. Actually it was supposed to be assistance not control. But Britain continued to treat Palestine like a military occupation.

Naturally, the Palestinians opposed a military occupation.

(COMMENT)

1917 - 1920: The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) over the entirety of the Levant provinces within the Ottoman Empire.
1918: Armistice of Mudros - Complete surrender of the entire Ottoman Empire
1919–1922: Turkish War of Independence
1920: OETA replaced by a Civilian Administration
1920: The Peace Treaty of Sèvres
1922: Mandate for Palestine
1922: Palestine Order-in-Council
1924: Convention between the United States and Great Britain in respect to Rights in Palestine
1924: Treaty of Lausanne replaces Treaty of Sèvres
1925: Palestinian Citizenship (Amendment) Order, 1931

Turkey DID NOT "Turkey ceded the land to Palestine." Palestine was NOT a party to the Treaty.

ARTICLE I6.

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.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Boycott Israel
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

Technically, the Mandate is a legal instrument, and place is called the "territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies" by the Palestine Order-in-Council, hereinafter described as Palestine." But I find it very odd that since everyone in this discussion group knows what was meant. You comment added nothing to the content.

No, you have that wrong. The Order in Council was when Britain occupied Turkish territory.

The Mandate could not apply until after Turkey ceded the land to Palestine. That changed the rules for British control. Actually it was supposed to be assistance not control. But Britain continued to treat Palestine like a military occupation.

Naturally, the Palestinians opposed a military occupation.

(COMMENT)

1917 - 1920: The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) over the entirety of the Levant provinces within the Ottoman Empire.
1918: Armistice of Mudros - Complete surrender of the entire Ottoman Empire
1919–1922: Turkish War of Independence
1920: OETA replaced by a Civilian Administration
1920: The Peace Treaty of Sèvres
1922: Mandate for Palestine
1922: Palestine Order-in-Council
1924: Convention between the United States and Great Britain in respect to Rights in Palestine
1924: Treaty of Lausanne replaces Treaty of Sèvres
1925: Palestinian Citizenship (Amendment) Order, 1931

Turkey DID NOT "Turkey ceded the land to Palestine." Palestine was NOT a party to the Treaty.

ARTICLE I6.

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.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.​

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, but Turkey had to cede the land to Palestine before the Mandate could commence operations.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Boycott Israel
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Maybe it is just me, but I think this is even an outrageous a claim, ebvenfor you. BUT that is just me.

It is true that the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) has never had a conventional fighting force; they have had numerous Jihadist, Virulent Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgent, Radicalized Islamist, and Asymmetric Fighters, to include but not limited to: the Palestinian Black Hand, the Holy War Army, the Arab Liberation Army, --- and:

1. Hamas
2. Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ)
3. Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade
4. Popular Resistance Committees (PRC)
5. Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP)
6. Popular Front for theLiberation of Palestine (PFLP)
7. Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)
8. Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command (PFLP-GC)
9. Harakat al-Sabireen

Those are all civilian militias. How many of those have a tank, or an airplane, or artillery.

Those are all responses to Israel's military attacks against Palestine's civilian population.

(QUESTION)

By what standard are you going to stand-up and say: HAMAS, PIJ, etc, are civilian militias?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Boycott Israel
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Maybe it is just me, but I think this is even an outrageous a claim, ebvenfor you. BUT that is just me.

It is true that the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) has never had a conventional fighting force; they have had numerous Jihadist, Virulent Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgent, Radicalized Islamist, and Asymmetric Fighters, to include but not limited to: the Palestinian Black Hand, the Holy War Army, the Arab Liberation Army, --- and:

1. Hamas
2. Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ)
3. Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade
4. Popular Resistance Committees (PRC)
5. Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP)
6. Popular Front for theLiberation of Palestine (PFLP)
7. Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)
8. Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command (PFLP-GC)
9. Harakat al-Sabireen

Those are all civilian militias. How many of those have a tank, or an airplane, or artillery.

Those are all responses to Israel's military attacks against Palestine's civilian population.

(QUESTION)

By what standard are you going to stand-up and say: HAMAS, PIJ, etc, are civilian militias?

Most Respectfully,
R

They are civilians not military. They are formed in groups, unaffiliated with the government, to defend their country.

 

[Likkmee]

Howzabout Costa Rica ? That rapper is probably what Yeshua REALLY looks like.
He nailed us too but forgot the shark story !

 

[Sixties Fan]

[Looks like it is the PA and other Arab Leaders that the Arab Palestinians should be boycotting for their situation]



[Full article online)

The best years in Palestinian history, economically, were under "occupation" ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Boycott Israel
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

No, that would be incorrect.

RE: Boycott Israel
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

Technically, the Mandate is a legal instrument, and place is called the "territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies" by the Palestine Order-in-Council, hereinafter described as Palestine." But I find it very odd that since everyone in this discussion group knows what was meant. You comment added nothing to the content.

No, you have that wrong. The Order in Council was when Britain occupied Turkish territory.

The Mandate could not apply until after Turkey ceded the land to Palestine. That changed the rules for British control. Actually it was supposed to be assistance not control. But Britain continued to treat Palestine like a military occupation.

Naturally, the Palestinians opposed a military occupation.

(COMMENT)

1917 - 1920: The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) over the entirety of the Levant provinces within the Ottoman Empire.
1918: Armistice of Mudros - Complete surrender of the entire Ottoman Empire
1919–1922: Turkish War of Independence
1920: OETA replaced by a Civilian Administration
1920: The Peace Treaty of Sèvres
1922: Mandate for Palestine
1922: Palestine Order-in-Council
1924: Convention between the United States and Great Britain in respect to Rights in Palestine
1924: Treaty of Lausanne replaces Treaty of Sèvres
1925: Palestinian Citizenship (Amendment) Order, 1931

Turkey DID NOT "Turkey ceded the land to Palestine." Palestine was NOT a party to the Treaty.

ARTICLE I6.

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.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.​

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, but Turkey had to cede the land to Palestine before the Mandate could commence operations.

(COMMENT)

The Turkish Republic did not emerge as an independent nation until 29 October 1923 (succeeding the Ottoman Empire). But by then, the Ottoman Empire had already surrendered the entire Levant to the Allied Power (Mudros Armistice 1918 and the Treaty of Sèvres). The Mandate was framed in 1920 (San Remo), created and published in 1922, then ratified in 1923. The Treaty of Lausanne became effective in August 1924.

Nothing was ceded to Palestine; nor any of the territories under Mandate. It all went to the control of the Allied Powers.

The Arab Palestinians, like any of the other cultures and populations, cannot derive anything at all from the various treaties, because the Treaty is an agreement concluded between States (with the authority to consented to be bound by the treaty).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Boycott Israel
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You can call them what you want.

They are civilians not military. They are formed in groups, unaffiliated with the government, to defend their country.

(COMMENT)

These "groups" dedicated to perform political acts; they are Jihadist, Virulent Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgent, Radicalized Islamist, and Asymmetric Fighters. These criminals are dedicated to the idea of instilling a climate of fear -- establishing conditions conducive to political coercion. These "groups" use violence or threat of violence intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies with of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.

• They disseminate propaganda, in the territories, which are either designed or likely to provoke or encourage and threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or acts of aggression against Israel;

• They believe Palestine is an exclusive homeland of the Arab Palestinian people;

• They believe Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit. Making it impossible for a two-State solution.
​

They are not freedom fighters. They are not defending their country; but instead provoking opponents to take actions to suppress hostile activity.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Nothing was ceded to Palestine; nor any of the territories under Mandate. It all went to the control of the Allied Powers.

Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​

Article 30 is of a great significance. It constituted a declaration of existing international law and the standard practice of states. This was despite the absence of a definite international law rule of state succession under which the nationals of predecessor state could ipso facto acquire the nationality of the successor.129 “As a rule, however, States have conferred their nationality on the former nationals of the predecessor State.”130 In practice, almost all peace treaties concluded between the Allies and other states at the end of World War I embodied nationality provisions similar to those of the Treaty of Lausanne. The inhabitants of Palestine, as the successors of this territory, henceforth acquired Palestinian nationality even if there was no treaty with Turkey.131

 

[P F Tinmore]

These "groups" dedicated to perform political acts; they are Jihadist, Virulent Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgent, Radicalized Islamist, and Asymmetric Fighters. These criminals are dedicated to the idea of instilling a climate of fear -- establishing conditions conducive to political coercion.

Oh my, so much name calling.

 

[P F Tinmore]

• They believe Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit. Making it impossible for a two-State solution.

The territory defined by their international borders.

Isn't that the meaning of the right to territorial integrity?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Dr. Nadia Abu El-Haj on the Occupation's effects on Palestinian Academia

 

[P F Tinmore]

Lisa Rofel on why boycott Israel (and not other countries)?

 

[P F Tinmore]

UN Women becomes fifth UN agency in Jordan to drop its contracts with G4S following BDS pressure

3 October 2017, Amman –

The United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (UN Women) in Jordan has dropped
its contracts with the world’s largest security firm, occupation profiteer G4S, following an ongoing BDS campaign over the firm’s role in Israel’s violations of human rights.

Jordan BDS welcomes UN Women’s decision and salutes the agency for taking a principled step in line with its core values of promoting human rights and human dignity. Accordingly, UN Women has become the fifth UN agency in Jordan to drop its contracts with occupation profiteer G4S alongside WFP, UNOPS, UNICEF and UNHCR.

UN Women becomes fifth UN agency in Jordan to drop its contracts with G4S following BDS pressure | الأردن تُقاطع

 

[Shusha]

Nothing was ceded to Palestine; nor any of the territories under Mandate. It all went to the control of the Allied Powers.

Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​

Article 30 is of a great significance. It constituted a declaration of existing international law and the standard practice of states. This was despite the absence of a definite international law rule of state succession under which the nationals of predecessor state could ipso facto acquire the nationality of the successor.129 “As a rule, however, States have conferred their nationality on the former nationals of the predecessor State.”130 In practice, almost all peace treaties concluded between the Allies and other states at the end of World War I embodied nationality provisions similar to those of the Treaty of Lausanne. The inhabitants of Palestine, as the successors of this territory, henceforth acquired Palestinian nationality even if there was no treaty with Turkey.131

This did not give them a State. Not did it cede any land to them.

 

[Shusha]

• They believe Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit. Making it impossible for a two-State solution.

The territory defined by their international borders.

Isn't that the meaning of the right to territorial integrity?

No, the right to territorial integrity does NOT mean that territorial units are indivisible.