Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Palestinians have been fighting against statehood for 68 years. That's because of the free shit they don't want to lose. People like Suha would be poorer than the Clintons.When and how could the Palestinians have had their own state. Even at partition 400,000 of them, one third of the Palestinians, were inhabitants of what was to become a Jewish ruled state?
As a followup, the Palestinians,under Arafart, learned how to keep the United Nations and the rest of the world hating and castigating Israel. It's gone on ever since the Russians taught Arafart all his dirty tricks, most importantly,TURNSPEAK. For example:Palestinians have been fighting against statehood for 68 years. That's because of the free shit they don't want to lose. People like Suha would be poorer than the Clintons.When and how could the Palestinians have had their own state. Even at partition 400,000 of them, one third of the Palestinians, were inhabitants of what was to become a Jewish ruled state?
There was no such nationality as "Pal'istanian" at the time of the partition.When and how could the Palestinians have had their own state. Even at partition 400,000 of them, one third of the Palestinians, were inhabitants of what was to become a Jewish ruled state?
There was no such nationality as "Pal'istanian" at the time of the partition.When and how could the Palestinians have had their own state. Even at partition 400,000 of them, one third of the Palestinians, were inhabitants of what was to become a Jewish ruled state?
Bull.There was no such nationality as "Pal'istanian" at the time of the partition.When and how could the Palestinians have had their own state. Even at partition 400,000 of them, one third of the Palestinians, were inhabitants of what was to become a Jewish ruled state?
No, Palistan is in Australia so they would be Australian citizens.
Palestinians on the other hand:
"In Palestine, citizenship was governed by the Palestine Citizenship Order of 24 July 1925, amended by various successive orders. The amended text of the Order of 24 July 1925 is worded as follows:
https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/418E7BC6931616B485256CAF00647CC7
“Turkish citizens habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 6th day of August 1924 2 shall become Palestinian citizens.”
Well that's odd. It has been you insisting that there were no Ottoman Turk invaders / colonizers in Pal'istan. Time for another of your reinventions of history to suit your ever changing narrative.There was no such nationality as "Pal'istanian" at the time of the partition.When and how could the Palestinians have had their own state. Even at partition 400,000 of them, one third of the Palestinians, were inhabitants of what was to become a Jewish ruled state?
No, Palistan is in Australia so they would be Australian citizens.
Palestinians on the other hand:
"In Palestine, citizenship was governed by the Palestine Citizenship Order of 24 July 1925, amended by various successive orders. The amended text of the Order of 24 July 1925 is worded as follows:
A/AC.25/W/61 of 9 April 1951
“Turkish citizens habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 6th day of August 1924 2 shall become Palestinian citizens.”
British citizens of the Palestine mandate. Read again:Bull? The Palestine Citizen Order was the law of the land you nutter.
Well that's odd. It has been you insisting that there were no Ottoman Turk invaders / colonizers in Pal'istan. Time for another of your reinventions of history to suit your ever changing narrative.There was no such nationality as "Pal'istanian" at the time of the partition.When and how could the Palestinians have had their own state. Even at partition 400,000 of them, one third of the Palestinians, were inhabitants of what was to become a Jewish ruled state?
No, Palistan is in Australia so they would be Australian citizens.
Palestinians on the other hand:
"In Palestine, citizenship was governed by the Palestine Citizenship Order of 24 July 1925, amended by various successive orders. The amended text of the Order of 24 July 1925 is worded as follows:
A/AC.25/W/61 of 9 April 1951
“Turkish citizens habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 6th day of August 1924 2 shall become Palestinian citizens.”
Obviously, you have have clue what you're saying from one post to the next.Well that's odd. It has been you insisting that there were no Ottoman Turk invaders / colonizers in Pal'istan. Time for another of your reinventions of history to suit your ever changing narrative.There was no such nationality as "Pal'istanian" at the time of the partition.When and how could the Palestinians have had their own state. Even at partition 400,000 of them, one third of the Palestinians, were inhabitants of what was to become a Jewish ruled state?
No, Palistan is in Australia so they would be Australian citizens.
Palestinians on the other hand:
"In Palestine, citizenship was governed by the Palestine Citizenship Order of 24 July 1925, amended by various successive orders. The amended text of the Order of 24 July 1925 is worded as follows:
A/AC.25/W/61 of 9 April 1951
“Turkish citizens habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 6th day of August 1924 2 shall become Palestinian citizens.”
I said that the Turks did not transfer their population to Palestine. I have always stated that they took over as rulers of Palestine from the Mamluks.
Obviously, you have have clue what you're saying from one post to the next.Well that's odd. It has been you insisting that there were no Ottoman Turk invaders / colonizers in Pal'istan. Time for another of your reinventions of history to suit your ever changing narrative.There was no such nationality as "Pal'istanian" at the time of the partition.When and how could the Palestinians have had their own state. Even at partition 400,000 of them, one third of the Palestinians, were inhabitants of what was to become a Jewish ruled state?
No, Palistan is in Australia so they would be Australian citizens.
Palestinians on the other hand:
"In Palestine, citizenship was governed by the Palestine Citizenship Order of 24 July 1925, amended by various successive orders. The amended text of the Order of 24 July 1925 is worded as follows:
A/AC.25/W/61 of 9 April 1951
“Turkish citizens habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 6th day of August 1924 2 shall become Palestinian citizens.”
I said that the Turks did not transfer their population to Palestine. I have always stated that they took over as rulers of Palestine from the Mamluks.
Put on your islamo-dancing shoes. You'll be doing a lot of sidestepping and attempting a Michael Jackson moonwalk.
Bull? The Palestine Citizen Order was the law of the land you nutter.
You really need to stop posting historical facts that contradict the IslamoNazi talking points! Allahuakbar!Bull? The Palestine Citizen Order was the law of the land you nutter.
Your daft Diddums ;--)
The real question is a citizen of what ?
From
The creation of Palestinian citizenship under an international mandate: 1918-1925
LAUREN BANKO 6 November 2012
Quote
Despite the ratification of Lausanne in September 1924, internal differences of opinion within the British government continued to have an impact on the status of Palestinians. The Foreign Office wrote to the Home Office that Palestine did ‘not bear the slightest resemblances to an independent state’ and its citizens had no such status as belonging to one in international law. The status of the mandate as a British trusteeship rather than an outright colony or protectorate had little precedence.
The King of England passed the Palestine Citizenship Order-in-Council one year after the Lausanne Treaty and its provisions officially came into force on 1 August 1925. This was the only such citizenship order enacted by Great Britain in any of their mandates or territories at that time; in Iraq and Transjordan, local Arab authorities enacted nationality legislation and had their own official representation to the British mandatory. In Britain’s African mandates, inhabitants remained British-protected persons. Just like the other imperial orders, the Citizenship Order was enacted by the British Government, not by the Government of Palestine.
It is interesting to note that until the middle of 1924, the order-in-council draft to regulate Palestinian citizenship was titled the Palestinian Nationality Order-in-Council. Only in May did colonial officials recommend this be changed to the Palestinian Citizenship Order-in-Council to avoid complications. By July, the draft order had ‘nationality’ crossed out and replaced with ‘citizenship’. Only shortly before the order passed, the Colonial Office changed ‘subject’ to ‘citizen’ in all places and made a note that ‘national’ in the Treaty of Lausanne meant both subject and citizen in the Citizenship Order. A short article written fifteen years later by the former Attorney General of Palestine Norman Bentwich (who drafted much of Palestine’s citizenship legislation through 1930) offered an explanation grounded in orientalism. Bentwich noted that citizen and citizenship replaced national and nationality in the final order because of the ‘Oriental’ difference of the terminology. In oriental countries, citizenship marked the allegiance to a state whereas membership of nationality was a matter of race and religion. Both Arabs and Jews were equally Palestinian citizens, wrote Bentwich, but they both claimed to have separate Arab or Jewish nationality.
End Quote
You really need to stop posting historical facts that contradict the IslamoNazi talking points! Allahuakbar!Bull? The Palestine Citizen Order was the law of the land you nutter.
Your daft Diddums ;--)
The real question is a citizen of what ?
From
The creation of Palestinian citizenship under an international mandate: 1918-1925
LAUREN BANKO 6 November 2012
Quote
Despite the ratification of Lausanne in September 1924, internal differences of opinion within the British government continued to have an impact on the status of Palestinians. The Foreign Office wrote to the Home Office that Palestine did ‘not bear the slightest resemblances to an independent state’ and its citizens had no such status as belonging to one in international law. The status of the mandate as a British trusteeship rather than an outright colony or protectorate had little precedence.
The King of England passed the Palestine Citizenship Order-in-Council one year after the Lausanne Treaty and its provisions officially came into force on 1 August 1925. This was the only such citizenship order enacted by Great Britain in any of their mandates or territories at that time; in Iraq and Transjordan, local Arab authorities enacted nationality legislation and had their own official representation to the British mandatory. In Britain’s African mandates, inhabitants remained British-protected persons. Just like the other imperial orders, the Citizenship Order was enacted by the British Government, not by the Government of Palestine.
It is interesting to note that until the middle of 1924, the order-in-council draft to regulate Palestinian citizenship was titled the Palestinian Nationality Order-in-Council. Only in May did colonial officials recommend this be changed to the Palestinian Citizenship Order-in-Council to avoid complications. By July, the draft order had ‘nationality’ crossed out and replaced with ‘citizenship’. Only shortly before the order passed, the Colonial Office changed ‘subject’ to ‘citizen’ in all places and made a note that ‘national’ in the Treaty of Lausanne meant both subject and citizen in the Citizenship Order. A short article written fifteen years later by the former Attorney General of Palestine Norman Bentwich (who drafted much of Palestine’s citizenship legislation through 1930) offered an explanation grounded in orientalism. Bentwich noted that citizen and citizenship replaced national and nationality in the final order because of the ‘Oriental’ difference of the terminology. In oriental countries, citizenship marked the allegiance to a state whereas membership of nationality was a matter of race and religion. Both Arabs and Jews were equally Palestinian citizens, wrote Bentwich, but they both claimed to have separate Arab or Jewish nationality.
End Quote
You really need to stop posting historical facts that contradict the IslamoNazi talking points! Allahuakbar!Bull? The Palestine Citizen Order was the law of the land you nutter.
Your daft Diddums ;--)
The real question is a citizen of what ?
From
The creation of Palestinian citizenship under an international mandate: 1918-1925
LAUREN BANKO 6 November 2012
Quote
Despite the ratification of Lausanne in September 1924, internal differences of opinion within the British government continued to have an impact on the status of Palestinians. The Foreign Office wrote to the Home Office that Palestine did ‘not bear the slightest resemblances to an independent state’ and its citizens had no such status as belonging to one in international law. The status of the mandate as a British trusteeship rather than an outright colony or protectorate had little precedence.
The King of England passed the Palestine Citizenship Order-in-Council one year after the Lausanne Treaty and its provisions officially came into force on 1 August 1925. This was the only such citizenship order enacted by Great Britain in any of their mandates or territories at that time; in Iraq and Transjordan, local Arab authorities enacted nationality legislation and had their own official representation to the British mandatory. In Britain’s African mandates, inhabitants remained British-protected persons. Just like the other imperial orders, the Citizenship Order was enacted by the British Government, not by the Government of Palestine.
It is interesting to note that until the middle of 1924, the order-in-council draft to regulate Palestinian citizenship was titled the Palestinian Nationality Order-in-Council. Only in May did colonial officials recommend this be changed to the Palestinian Citizenship Order-in-Council to avoid complications. By July, the draft order had ‘nationality’ crossed out and replaced with ‘citizenship’. Only shortly before the order passed, the Colonial Office changed ‘subject’ to ‘citizen’ in all places and made a note that ‘national’ in the Treaty of Lausanne meant both subject and citizen in the Citizenship Order. A short article written fifteen years later by the former Attorney General of Palestine Norman Bentwich (who drafted much of Palestine’s citizenship legislation through 1930) offered an explanation grounded in orientalism. Bentwich noted that citizen and citizenship replaced national and nationality in the final order because of the ‘Oriental’ difference of the terminology. In oriental countries, citizenship marked the allegiance to a state whereas membership of nationality was a matter of race and religion. Both Arabs and Jews were equally Palestinian citizens, wrote Bentwich, but they both claimed to have separate Arab or Jewish nationality.
End Quote
Just screws up everything doesn't it ;--)
