Hamas rocket

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

First, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne is not "Palestine" specific. In fact the language of the Treaty is not even unique. It is derivative from the language used in HM's order --- Palestine Legislative Council Election Order, 10 August 1922.

For the purposes of this Order and pending the introduction of an Order in Council regulating Palestinian citizenship, the following persons shall be deemed to be Palestinian citizens:--

(a)Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the date of commencement of this Order.

(b)All persons of other than Turkish nationality habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the said date, who shall within two calendar months of the said date make application for Palestinian citizenship in such form and before such officer as may be prescribed by the High Commissioner.​

59. For the purpose of this part of the Order the expression "foreigner" means any person who is a national or subject of a European or American State or of Japan, but shall not include:

(i) Native inhabitants of a territory protected by or administered under a mandate granted to a European State.
(ii) Ottoman subjects.
(iii) Persons who have lost Ottoman nationality and have not acquired any other nationality.
​

The Palestine Citizenship Order in Council came into force on the 1st of August 1925; a revised Immigration Ordinance has been promulgated; the Convention between His Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States of America relating to the treatment of American citizens in Palestine was ratified in December.

SECTION III.
QUESTIONNAIRE OF PERMANENT MANDATES COMMISSION,
WITH BRIEF REPLIES.
I.--JEWISH NATIONAL HOME.​

1.Q. What measures have been taken to place the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the national home of the Jewish people? What are the effects of these measures?

A. The direction and objects of the policy of the Government of Palestine in law, administration and finance are unchanged. The visible results of the policy have been tranquillity, increased Jewish immigration, progress of Jewish agricultural settlement. The expansion of industry has been encouraged by the grant of exemption of certain raw materials from import duty (see [pages ] of this Report).

The regulations under the Immigration Ordinance, 1925, set up a statutory procedure for the introduction of Jewish immigrant labour into Palestine. The Palestinian Citizenship Order in Council, 1925, facilitates the acquisition of Palestinian nationality by persons settling in the country, including those who opted for Palestinian citizenship under the Palestine Legislative Council Election Order in Council, 1922. There was a remarkable development of Jewish Co-operative Societies, constituted principally for building, agricultural and mutual credit purposes. Twenty-six Jewish companies were formed.​

3.Q. What measures have been taken to bring the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will safeguard the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion? What are the effects of these measures?

A. The Palestinian Citizenship Order in Council which was made in August, 1925, provides for "the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by persons habitually resident in the country who were Ottoman subjects, and persons who were foreign subjects and take up permanent residence."​

Clearly, prior to 1948, the conflict was internal.​

Is that, in fact, true? I do not believe it is. There is a question of citizenship.

International law, article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne, and the citizenship order of 1925 all agree. Those normally living in Palestine at the time of its creation had the nationality of Palestinian and were citizens of Palestine. There can be no dispute on this issue.

On the other hand, there are problems with the citizenship of those who were brought into Palestine by the World Zionist Organization. The Zionists did not import these settlers to be Palestinians but to populate their planned Jewish state. The settlers did not live with the Palestinians but in colonies served/governed by their own separate institutions. Neither the Zionists nor the settlers had any allegiance to Palestine.

There was never any intent for the settlers to be Palestinians.

ALIEN
:
By contrast, an "alien" is generally understood to be a foreigner -- a person who comes from a foreign country -- who does not owe allegiance to our country.

Definitions Alien Immigrant Illegal Alien Undocumented Immigrant​

I don't see how battles between the native population and colonial settlers can be defined as a civil war.

(COMMENT)

The "the native population" and the "colonial settlers" (using your words not the correct terminology) derived their citizenship from the very same source. "The acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by persons habitually resident in the country who were Ottoman subjects, and persons who were foreign subjects and take up permanent residence."

This language is the applicable and correct terminology to use; NOT American law example you point out.

“Illegal alien” is not a legal term. An alien is defined as anyone who is not a citizen or national of the United States. However, “illegal alien” is not a legal term in the Immigration and Nationality Act. For some, the use of the term “illegal alien” is likely based on a misconception that an immigrant’s very presence in the United States is a criminal violation of the law. While the act of entering the country without inspection is a federal misdemeanor, and for repeat offenders could be a felony, the status of being present in the United States without a visa is not an ongoing criminal violation.
SOURCE:
No Human Being is Illegal: Why use of the term “illegal alien” is inaccurate, offensive, and should be eliminated from our public discourse.
by Shahid Haque-Hausrath | Feb 5, 2009 |​

In terms of the "Civil War" --- it does not matter what either side believes to be valid. After all, the outcome of the armed conflict, over the issue, will settle that. What is important is understanding the source of the "citizenship." It does not come from the Treaty, but from the Allied Powers, the Council League and the Mandatory. While the indigenous population might differ with the rulings, all the decrees, treaties, orders in council, mandates and similar legal instrumentalities all are derived from the same source; none of which are influenced by the Arab Population.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[aris2chat]

Hamas Accused of Bulldozing Salafist Mosque Amid Rising Tensions
IPT News

An Islamic State (ISIS) affiliate accused Hamas of destroying one of its mosques in the Gaza Strip on Sunday, the Jerusalem Post reports.

On Monday, an ISIS-affiliated organization reportedly detonated an explosive device near Hamas' security headquarters used to train police recruits.

These developments indicate rising tensions exist between Hamas and groups affiliated with the Islamic State in Gaza. Before Monday's bombing, the ISIS affiliate threatened various Hamas security officers, publishing some of their names and photos, after Hamas arrested several Salafist jihadi supporters. The ISIS affiliate called on "all of our soldiers" to act against Hamas if the Salafist prisoners were not released.

"Hamas and its security forces have 72 hours from the release of this statement to free all Salafist (jihadist) prisoners...all options are open to us to respond to Hamas," read the statement.

Ansar al-Dawleh al-Islamiyeh (Supporters of the Islamic State) claims that Hamas used three bulldozers Sunday to demolish the mosque in Deir Al-Balah. Hamas did not remove copies of the Quran before destroying the mosque, the Jerusalem Post's Khaled Abu Toameh reported on Twitter.

"...in light of Hamas' latest action, we renew our allegiance to Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi and call on him to strengthen his influence, to open up a war in Palestine in order to unite together in a war against the Jews and their accomplices," a statement from the ISIS affiliate said.

Hamas did not publicly comment on the accusations; however, sources close to the terrorist organization said that the bulldozed building was a Salafi-jihadist office and not a mosque.

The ISIS group accused Hamas of acting worse than the "Jewish occupiers," according to Israel NRG and reported by Algeimeiner.

"Armed men from Hamas came to Deir Al-Balah and destroyed the mosque, acting in a way that even the Jewish occupiers and the Americans have not acted," the ISIS group tweeted.

and this from turkey
Gaza security forces arrest pro-Daesh salafists 5 May 2015

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

First, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne is not "Palestine" specific. In fact the language of the Treaty is not even unique. It is derivative from the language used in HM's order --- Palestine Legislative Council Election Order, 10 August 1922.

For the purposes of this Order and pending the introduction of an Order in Council regulating Palestinian citizenship, the following persons shall be deemed to be Palestinian citizens:--

(a)Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the date of commencement of this Order.

(b)All persons of other than Turkish nationality habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the said date, who shall within two calendar months of the said date make application for Palestinian citizenship in such form and before such officer as may be prescribed by the High Commissioner.​

59. For the purpose of this part of the Order the expression "foreigner" means any person who is a national or subject of a European or American State or of Japan, but shall not include:

(i) Native inhabitants of a territory protected by or administered under a mandate granted to a European State.
(ii) Ottoman subjects.
(iii) Persons who have lost Ottoman nationality and have not acquired any other nationality.
​

The Palestine Citizenship Order in Council came into force on the 1st of August 1925; a revised Immigration Ordinance has been promulgated; the Convention between His Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States of America relating to the treatment of American citizens in Palestine was ratified in December.

SECTION III.
QUESTIONNAIRE OF PERMANENT MANDATES COMMISSION,
WITH BRIEF REPLIES.
I.--JEWISH NATIONAL HOME.​

1.Q. What measures have been taken to place the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the national home of the Jewish people? What are the effects of these measures?

A. The direction and objects of the policy of the Government of Palestine in law, administration and finance are unchanged. The visible results of the policy have been tranquillity, increased Jewish immigration, progress of Jewish agricultural settlement. The expansion of industry has been encouraged by the grant of exemption of certain raw materials from import duty (see [pages ] of this Report).

The regulations under the Immigration Ordinance, 1925, set up a statutory procedure for the introduction of Jewish immigrant labour into Palestine. The Palestinian Citizenship Order in Council, 1925, facilitates the acquisition of Palestinian nationality by persons settling in the country, including those who opted for Palestinian citizenship under the Palestine Legislative Council Election Order in Council, 1922. There was a remarkable development of Jewish Co-operative Societies, constituted principally for building, agricultural and mutual credit purposes. Twenty-six Jewish companies were formed.​

3.Q. What measures have been taken to bring the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will safeguard the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion? What are the effects of these measures?

A. The Palestinian Citizenship Order in Council which was made in August, 1925, provides for "the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by persons habitually resident in the country who were Ottoman subjects, and persons who were foreign subjects and take up permanent residence."​

Clearly, prior to 1948, the conflict was internal.​

Is that, in fact, true? I do not believe it is. There is a question of citizenship.

International law, article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne, and the citizenship order of 1925 all agree. Those normally living in Palestine at the time of its creation had the nationality of Palestinian and were citizens of Palestine. There can be no dispute on this issue.

On the other hand, there are problems with the citizenship of those who were brought into Palestine by the World Zionist Organization. The Zionists did not import these settlers to be Palestinians but to populate their planned Jewish state. The settlers did not live with the Palestinians but in colonies served/governed by their own separate institutions. Neither the Zionists nor the settlers had any allegiance to Palestine.

There was never any intent for the settlers to be Palestinians.

ALIEN
:
By contrast, an "alien" is generally understood to be a foreigner -- a person who comes from a foreign country -- who does not owe allegiance to our country.

Definitions Alien Immigrant Illegal Alien Undocumented Immigrant​

I don't see how battles between the native population and colonial settlers can be defined as a civil war.

(COMMENT)

The "the native population" and the "colonial settlers" (using your words not the correct terminology) derived their citizenship from the very same source. "The acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by persons habitually resident in the country who were Ottoman subjects, and persons who were foreign subjects and take up permanent residence."

This language is the applicable and correct terminology to use; NOT American law example you point out.

“Illegal alien” is not a legal term. An alien is defined as anyone who is not a citizen or national of the United States. However, “illegal alien” is not a legal term in the Immigration and Nationality Act. For some, the use of the term “illegal alien” is likely based on a misconception that an immigrant’s very presence in the United States is a criminal violation of the law. While the act of entering the country without inspection is a federal misdemeanor, and for repeat offenders could be a felony, the status of being present in the United States without a visa is not an ongoing criminal violation.
SOURCE:
No Human Being is Illegal: Why use of the term “illegal alien” is inaccurate, offensive, and should be eliminated from our public discourse.
by Shahid Haque-Hausrath | Feb 5, 2009 |​

In terms of the "Civil War" --- it does not matter what either side believes to be valid. After all, the outcome of the armed conflict, over the issue, will settle that. What is important is understanding the source of the "citizenship." It does not come from the Treaty, but from the Allied Powers, the Council League and the Mandatory. While the indigenous population might differ with the rulings, all the decrees, treaties, orders in council, mandates and similar legal instrumentalities all are derived from the same source; none of which are influenced by the Arab Population.

Most Respectfully,
R

What part of all this refutes anything in my post?

Particularly:

There was never any intent for the settlers to be Palestinians.

 

[Hossfly]

P F Tinmore, et al,

First, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne is not "Palestine" specific. In fact the language of the Treaty is not even unique. It is derivative from the language used in HM's order --- Palestine Legislative Council Election Order, 10 August 1922.

For the purposes of this Order and pending the introduction of an Order in Council regulating Palestinian citizenship, the following persons shall be deemed to be Palestinian citizens:--

(a)Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the date of commencement of this Order.

(b)All persons of other than Turkish nationality habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the said date, who shall within two calendar months of the said date make application for Palestinian citizenship in such form and before such officer as may be prescribed by the High Commissioner.​

59. For the purpose of this part of the Order the expression "foreigner" means any person who is a national or subject of a European or American State or of Japan, but shall not include:

(i) Native inhabitants of a territory protected by or administered under a mandate granted to a European State.
(ii) Ottoman subjects.
(iii) Persons who have lost Ottoman nationality and have not acquired any other nationality.
​

The Palestine Citizenship Order in Council came into force on the 1st of August 1925; a revised Immigration Ordinance has been promulgated; the Convention between His Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States of America relating to the treatment of American citizens in Palestine was ratified in December.

SECTION III.
QUESTIONNAIRE OF PERMANENT MANDATES COMMISSION,
WITH BRIEF REPLIES.
I.--JEWISH NATIONAL HOME.​

1.Q. What measures have been taken to place the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the national home of the Jewish people? What are the effects of these measures?

A. The direction and objects of the policy of the Government of Palestine in law, administration and finance are unchanged. The visible results of the policy have been tranquillity, increased Jewish immigration, progress of Jewish agricultural settlement. The expansion of industry has been encouraged by the grant of exemption of certain raw materials from import duty (see [pages ] of this Report).

The regulations under the Immigration Ordinance, 1925, set up a statutory procedure for the introduction of Jewish immigrant labour into Palestine. The Palestinian Citizenship Order in Council, 1925, facilitates the acquisition of Palestinian nationality by persons settling in the country, including those who opted for Palestinian citizenship under the Palestine Legislative Council Election Order in Council, 1922. There was a remarkable development of Jewish Co-operative Societies, constituted principally for building, agricultural and mutual credit purposes. Twenty-six Jewish companies were formed.​

3.Q. What measures have been taken to bring the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will safeguard the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion? What are the effects of these measures?

A. The Palestinian Citizenship Order in Council which was made in August, 1925, provides for "the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by persons habitually resident in the country who were Ottoman subjects, and persons who were foreign subjects and take up permanent residence."​

Clearly, prior to 1948, the conflict was internal.​

Is that, in fact, true? I do not believe it is. There is a question of citizenship.

International law, article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne, and the citizenship order of 1925 all agree. Those normally living in Palestine at the time of its creation had the nationality of Palestinian and were citizens of Palestine. There can be no dispute on this issue.

On the other hand, there are problems with the citizenship of those who were brought into Palestine by the World Zionist Organization. The Zionists did not import these settlers to be Palestinians but to populate their planned Jewish state. The settlers did not live with the Palestinians but in colonies served/governed by their own separate institutions. Neither the Zionists nor the settlers had any allegiance to Palestine.

There was never any intent for the settlers to be Palestinians.

ALIEN
:
By contrast, an "alien" is generally understood to be a foreigner -- a person who comes from a foreign country -- who does not owe allegiance to our country.

Definitions Alien Immigrant Illegal Alien Undocumented Immigrant​

I don't see how battles between the native population and colonial settlers can be defined as a civil war.

(COMMENT)

The "the native population" and the "colonial settlers" (using your words not the correct terminology) derived their citizenship from the very same source. "The acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by persons habitually resident in the country who were Ottoman subjects, and persons who were foreign subjects and take up permanent residence."

This language is the applicable and correct terminology to use; NOT American law example you point out.

“Illegal alien” is not a legal term. An alien is defined as anyone who is not a citizen or national of the United States. However, “illegal alien” is not a legal term in the Immigration and Nationality Act. For some, the use of the term “illegal alien” is likely based on a misconception that an immigrant’s very presence in the United States is a criminal violation of the law. While the act of entering the country without inspection is a federal misdemeanor, and for repeat offenders could be a felony, the status of being present in the United States without a visa is not an ongoing criminal violation.
SOURCE:
No Human Being is Illegal: Why use of the term “illegal alien” is inaccurate, offensive, and should be eliminated from our public discourse.
by Shahid Haque-Hausrath | Feb 5, 2009 |​

In terms of the "Civil War" --- it does not matter what either side believes to be valid. After all, the outcome of the armed conflict, over the issue, will settle that. What is important is understanding the source of the "citizenship." It does not come from the Treaty, but from the Allied Powers, the Council League and the Mandatory. While the indigenous population might differ with the rulings, all the decrees, treaties, orders in council, mandates and similar legal instrumentalities all are derived from the same source; none of which are influenced by the Arab Population.

Most Respectfully,
R

What part of all this refutes anything in my post?

Nuttin', honey.

 

[Hossfly]

Hamas Accused of Bulldozing Salafist Mosque Amid Rising Tensions
IPT News

An Islamic State (ISIS) affiliate accused Hamas of destroying one of its mosques in the Gaza Strip on Sunday, the Jerusalem Post reports.

On Monday, an ISIS-affiliated organization reportedly detonated an explosive device near Hamas' security headquarters used to train police recruits.

These developments indicate rising tensions exist between Hamas and groups affiliated with the Islamic State in Gaza. Before Monday's bombing, the ISIS affiliate threatened various Hamas security officers, publishing some of their names and photos, after Hamas arrested several Salafist jihadi supporters. The ISIS affiliate called on "all of our soldiers" to act against Hamas if the Salafist prisoners were not released.

"Hamas and its security forces have 72 hours from the release of this statement to free all Salafist (jihadist) prisoners...all options are open to us to respond to Hamas," read the statement.

Ansar al-Dawleh al-Islamiyeh (Supporters of the Islamic State) claims that Hamas used three bulldozers Sunday to demolish the mosque in Deir Al-Balah. Hamas did not remove copies of the Quran before destroying the mosque, the Jerusalem Post's Khaled Abu Toameh reported on Twitter.

"...in light of Hamas' latest action, we renew our allegiance to Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi and call on him to strengthen his influence, to open up a war in Palestine in order to unite together in a war against the Jews and their accomplices," a statement from the ISIS affiliate said.

Hamas did not publicly comment on the accusations; however, sources close to the terrorist organization said that the bulldozed building was a Salafi-jihadist office and not a mosque.

The ISIS group accused Hamas of acting worse than the "Jewish occupiers," according to Israel NRG and reported by Algeimeiner.

"Armed men from Hamas came to Deir Al-Balah and destroyed the mosque, acting in a way that even the Jewish occupiers and the Americans have not acted," the ISIS group tweeted.

and this from turkey
Gaza security forces arrest pro-Daesh salafists 5 May 2015

aris2chat


Hamas security HQ in Gaza bombed after threat

GAZA CITY - A bomb blast targeted Hamas’s security headquarters in Gaza City on Monday, witnesses said, after Islamists issued a threatening message calling for the release of prisoners.

The explosion just before dawn damaged the building’s perimeter wall, witnesses told AFP.

The security forces, run by de facto Gaza rulers and Hamas movement, were not immediately available for comment.

An online statement just hours before the blast, apparently issued by anti-Hamas radical Islamists, threatened to “act against chosen targets” if jihadist prisoners were not freed within 72 hours.

Hamas security HQ in Gaza bombed after threat

 

[Roudy]

Hamas Accused of Bulldozing Salafist Mosque Amid Rising Tensions
IPT News

An Islamic State (ISIS) affiliate accused Hamas of destroying one of its mosques in the Gaza Strip on Sunday, the Jerusalem Post reports.

On Monday, an ISIS-affiliated organization reportedly detonated an explosive device near Hamas' security headquarters used to train police recruits.

These developments indicate rising tensions exist between Hamas and groups affiliated with the Islamic State in Gaza. Before Monday's bombing, the ISIS affiliate threatened various Hamas security officers, publishing some of their names and photos, after Hamas arrested several Salafist jihadi supporters. The ISIS affiliate called on "all of our soldiers" to act against Hamas if the Salafist prisoners were not released.

"Hamas and its security forces have 72 hours from the release of this statement to free all Salafist (jihadist) prisoners...all options are open to us to respond to Hamas," read the statement.

Ansar al-Dawleh al-Islamiyeh (Supporters of the Islamic State) claims that Hamas used three bulldozers Sunday to demolish the mosque in Deir Al-Balah. Hamas did not remove copies of the Quran before destroying the mosque, the Jerusalem Post's Khaled Abu Toameh reported on Twitter.

"...in light of Hamas' latest action, we renew our allegiance to Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi and call on him to strengthen his influence, to open up a war in Palestine in order to unite together in a war against the Jews and their accomplices," a statement from the ISIS affiliate said.

Hamas did not publicly comment on the accusations; however, sources close to the terrorist organization said that the bulldozed building was a Salafi-jihadist office and not a mosque.

The ISIS group accused Hamas of acting worse than the "Jewish occupiers," according to Israel NRG and reported by Algeimeiner.

"Armed men from Hamas came to Deir Al-Balah and destroyed the mosque, acting in a way that even the Jewish occupiers and the Americans have not acted," the ISIS group tweeted.

and this from turkey
Gaza security forces arrest pro-Daesh salafists 5 May 2015

Oh goody, more Islamist savage animals killing each other.

 

[Roudy]

P F Tinmore, et al,

First, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne is not "Palestine" specific. In fact the language of the Treaty is not even unique. It is derivative from the language used in HM's order --- Palestine Legislative Council Election Order, 10 August 1922.

For the purposes of this Order and pending the introduction of an Order in Council regulating Palestinian citizenship, the following persons shall be deemed to be Palestinian citizens:--

(a)Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the date of commencement of this Order.

(b)All persons of other than Turkish nationality habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the said date, who shall within two calendar months of the said date make application for Palestinian citizenship in such form and before such officer as may be prescribed by the High Commissioner.​

59. For the purpose of this part of the Order the expression "foreigner" means any person who is a national or subject of a European or American State or of Japan, but shall not include:

(i) Native inhabitants of a territory protected by or administered under a mandate granted to a European State.
(ii) Ottoman subjects.
(iii) Persons who have lost Ottoman nationality and have not acquired any other nationality.
​

The Palestine Citizenship Order in Council came into force on the 1st of August 1925; a revised Immigration Ordinance has been promulgated; the Convention between His Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States of America relating to the treatment of American citizens in Palestine was ratified in December.

SECTION III.
QUESTIONNAIRE OF PERMANENT MANDATES COMMISSION,
WITH BRIEF REPLIES.
I.--JEWISH NATIONAL HOME.​

1.Q. What measures have been taken to place the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the national home of the Jewish people? What are the effects of these measures?

A. The direction and objects of the policy of the Government of Palestine in law, administration and finance are unchanged. The visible results of the policy have been tranquillity, increased Jewish immigration, progress of Jewish agricultural settlement. The expansion of industry has been encouraged by the grant of exemption of certain raw materials from import duty (see [pages ] of this Report).

The regulations under the Immigration Ordinance, 1925, set up a statutory procedure for the introduction of Jewish immigrant labour into Palestine. The Palestinian Citizenship Order in Council, 1925, facilitates the acquisition of Palestinian nationality by persons settling in the country, including those who opted for Palestinian citizenship under the Palestine Legislative Council Election Order in Council, 1922. There was a remarkable development of Jewish Co-operative Societies, constituted principally for building, agricultural and mutual credit purposes. Twenty-six Jewish companies were formed.​

3.Q. What measures have been taken to bring the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will safeguard the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion? What are the effects of these measures?

A. The Palestinian Citizenship Order in Council which was made in August, 1925, provides for "the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by persons habitually resident in the country who were Ottoman subjects, and persons who were foreign subjects and take up permanent residence."​

Clearly, prior to 1948, the conflict was internal.​

Is that, in fact, true? I do not believe it is. There is a question of citizenship.

International law, article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne, and the citizenship order of 1925 all agree. Those normally living in Palestine at the time of its creation had the nationality of Palestinian and were citizens of Palestine. There can be no dispute on this issue.

On the other hand, there are problems with the citizenship of those who were brought into Palestine by the World Zionist Organization. The Zionists did not import these settlers to be Palestinians but to populate their planned Jewish state. The settlers did not live with the Palestinians but in colonies served/governed by their own separate institutions. Neither the Zionists nor the settlers had any allegiance to Palestine.

There was never any intent for the settlers to be Palestinians.

ALIEN
:
By contrast, an "alien" is generally understood to be a foreigner -- a person who comes from a foreign country -- who does not owe allegiance to our country.

Definitions Alien Immigrant Illegal Alien Undocumented Immigrant​

I don't see how battles between the native population and colonial settlers can be defined as a civil war.

(COMMENT)

The "the native population" and the "colonial settlers" (using your words not the correct terminology) derived their citizenship from the very same source. "The acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by persons habitually resident in the country who were Ottoman subjects, and persons who were foreign subjects and take up permanent residence."

This language is the applicable and correct terminology to use; NOT American law example you point out.

“Illegal alien” is not a legal term. An alien is defined as anyone who is not a citizen or national of the United States. However, “illegal alien” is not a legal term in the Immigration and Nationality Act. For some, the use of the term “illegal alien” is likely based on a misconception that an immigrant’s very presence in the United States is a criminal violation of the law. While the act of entering the country without inspection is a federal misdemeanor, and for repeat offenders could be a felony, the status of being present in the United States without a visa is not an ongoing criminal violation.
SOURCE:
No Human Being is Illegal: Why use of the term “illegal alien” is inaccurate, offensive, and should be eliminated from our public discourse.
by Shahid Haque-Hausrath | Feb 5, 2009 |​

In terms of the "Civil War" --- it does not matter what either side believes to be valid. After all, the outcome of the armed conflict, over the issue, will settle that. What is important is understanding the source of the "citizenship." It does not come from the Treaty, but from the Allied Powers, the Council League and the Mandatory. While the indigenous population might differ with the rulings, all the decrees, treaties, orders in council, mandates and similar legal instrumentalities all are derived from the same source; none of which are influenced by the Arab Population.

Most Respectfully,
R

What part of all this refutes anything in my post?

Nuttin', honey.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

These are all interlocking processes. One supporting the other.

P F Tinmore, et al,

First, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne is not "Palestine" specific. In fact the language of the Treaty is not even unique. It is derivative from the language used in HM's order --- Palestine Legislative Council Election Order, 10 August 1922.

For the purposes of this Order and pending the introduction of an Order in Council regulating Palestinian citizenship, the following persons shall be deemed to be Palestinian citizens:--

(a)Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the date of commencement of this Order.

(b)All persons of other than Turkish nationality habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the said date, who shall within two calendar months of the said date make application for Palestinian citizenship in such form and before such officer as may be prescribed by the High Commissioner.​

59. For the purpose of this part of the Order the expression "foreigner" means any person who is a national or subject of a European or American State or of Japan, but shall not include:

(i) Native inhabitants of a territory protected by or administered under a mandate granted to a European State.
(ii) Ottoman subjects.
(iii) Persons who have lost Ottoman nationality and have not acquired any other nationality.
​

The Palestine Citizenship Order in Council came into force on the 1st of August 1925; a revised Immigration Ordinance has been promulgated; the Convention between His Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States of America relating to the treatment of American citizens in Palestine was ratified in December.

SECTION III.
QUESTIONNAIRE OF PERMANENT MANDATES COMMISSION,
WITH BRIEF REPLIES.
I.--JEWISH NATIONAL HOME.​

1.Q. What measures have been taken to place the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the national home of the Jewish people? What are the effects of these measures?

A. The direction and objects of the policy of the Government of Palestine in law, administration and finance are unchanged. The visible results of the policy have been tranquillity, increased Jewish immigration, progress of Jewish agricultural settlement. The expansion of industry has been encouraged by the grant of exemption of certain raw materials from import duty (see [pages ] of this Report).

The regulations under the Immigration Ordinance, 1925, set up a statutory procedure for the introduction of Jewish immigrant labour into Palestine. The Palestinian Citizenship Order in Council, 1925, facilitates the acquisition of Palestinian nationality by persons settling in the country, including those who opted for Palestinian citizenship under the Palestine Legislative Council Election Order in Council, 1922. There was a remarkable development of Jewish Co-operative Societies, constituted principally for building, agricultural and mutual credit purposes. Twenty-six Jewish companies were formed.​

3.Q. What measures have been taken to bring the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will safeguard the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion? What are the effects of these measures?

A. The Palestinian Citizenship Order in Council which was made in August, 1925, provides for "the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by persons habitually resident in the country who were Ottoman subjects, and persons who were foreign subjects and take up permanent residence."​

Clearly, prior to 1948, the conflict was internal.​

Is that, in fact, true? I do not believe it is. There is a question of citizenship.

International law, article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne, and the citizenship order of 1925 all agree. Those normally living in Palestine at the time of its creation had the nationality of Palestinian and were citizens of Palestine. There can be no dispute on this issue.

On the other hand, there are problems with the citizenship of those who were brought into Palestine by the World Zionist Organization. The Zionists did not import these settlers to be Palestinians but to populate their planned Jewish state. The settlers did not live with the Palestinians but in colonies served/governed by their own separate institutions. Neither the Zionists nor the settlers had any allegiance to Palestine.

There was never any intent for the settlers to be Palestinians.

ALIEN
:
By contrast, an "alien" is generally understood to be a foreigner -- a person who comes from a foreign country -- who does not owe allegiance to our country.

Definitions Alien Immigrant Illegal Alien Undocumented Immigrant​

I don't see how battles between the native population and colonial settlers can be defined as a civil war.

(COMMENT)

The "the native population" and the "colonial settlers" (using your words not the correct terminology) derived their citizenship from the very same source. "The acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by persons habitually resident in the country who were Ottoman subjects, and persons who were foreign subjects and take up permanent residence."

This language is the applicable and correct terminology to use; NOT American law example you point out.

“Illegal alien” is not a legal term. An alien is defined as anyone who is not a citizen or national of the United States. However, “illegal alien” is not a legal term in the Immigration and Nationality Act. For some, the use of the term “illegal alien” is likely based on a misconception that an immigrant’s very presence in the United States is a criminal violation of the law. While the act of entering the country without inspection is a federal misdemeanor, and for repeat offenders could be a felony, the status of being present in the United States without a visa is not an ongoing criminal violation.
SOURCE:
No Human Being is Illegal: Why use of the term “illegal alien” is inaccurate, offensive, and should be eliminated from our public discourse.
by Shahid Haque-Hausrath | Feb 5, 2009 |​

In terms of the "Civil War" --- it does not matter what either side believes to be valid. After all, the outcome of the armed conflict, over the issue, will settle that. What is important is understanding the source of the "citizenship." It does not come from the Treaty, but from the Allied Powers, the Council League and the Mandatory. While the indigenous population might differ with the rulings, all the decrees, treaties, orders in council, mandates and similar legal instrumentalities all are derived from the same source; none of which are influenced by the Arab Population.

Most Respectfully,
R

What part of all this refutes anything in my post?

Particularly:

There was never any intent for the settlers to be Palestinians.

(COMMENT)

The Order: "The Palestinian Citizenship Order in Council which was made in August, 1925, provides for "the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by persons habitually resident in the country who were Ottoman subjects, and persons who were foreign subjects and take up permanent residence."

If there was "never any intent for the settlers to be Palestinians" (your words not mine) then the Citizenship Order would not have further supported the Article 4 Mandate requirement that the Mandatory "shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage;" OR the Article 7 Mandate requirement for the Mandatory "to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine."

You are grasping at straws here --- trying to find some supporting documentation by the Allied Powers that would nullify the Jewish Immigrant authorization for Palestinian (territory to which the Mandate applied) Citizenship.

Both the Arab and the Jewish derive their citizenship from the same authority and power. Thus when they began to fight, they were citizen against citizen (a war between citizens of the same government - that established by the Council and Allied Powers).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

First, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne is not "Palestine" specific. In fact the language of the Treaty is not even unique. It is derivative from the language used in HM's order --- Palestine Legislative Council Election Order, 10 August 1922.

For the purposes of this Order and pending the introduction of an Order in Council regulating Palestinian citizenship, the following persons shall be deemed to be Palestinian citizens:--

(a)Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the date of commencement of this Order.

(b)All persons of other than Turkish nationality habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the said date, who shall within two calendar months of the said date make application for Palestinian citizenship in such form and before such officer as may be prescribed by the High Commissioner.​

59. For the purpose of this part of the Order the expression "foreigner" means any person who is a national or subject of a European or American State or of Japan, but shall not include:

(i) Native inhabitants of a territory protected by or administered under a mandate granted to a European State.
(ii) Ottoman subjects.
(iii) Persons who have lost Ottoman nationality and have not acquired any other nationality.
​

The Palestine Citizenship Order in Council came into force on the 1st of August 1925; a revised Immigration Ordinance has been promulgated; the Convention between His Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States of America relating to the treatment of American citizens in Palestine was ratified in December.

SECTION III.
QUESTIONNAIRE OF PERMANENT MANDATES COMMISSION,
WITH BRIEF REPLIES.
I.--JEWISH NATIONAL HOME.​

1.Q. What measures have been taken to place the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the national home of the Jewish people? What are the effects of these measures?

A. The direction and objects of the policy of the Government of Palestine in law, administration and finance are unchanged. The visible results of the policy have been tranquillity, increased Jewish immigration, progress of Jewish agricultural settlement. The expansion of industry has been encouraged by the grant of exemption of certain raw materials from import duty (see [pages ] of this Report).

The regulations under the Immigration Ordinance, 1925, set up a statutory procedure for the introduction of Jewish immigrant labour into Palestine. The Palestinian Citizenship Order in Council, 1925, facilitates the acquisition of Palestinian nationality by persons settling in the country, including those who opted for Palestinian citizenship under the Palestine Legislative Council Election Order in Council, 1922. There was a remarkable development of Jewish Co-operative Societies, constituted principally for building, agricultural and mutual credit purposes. Twenty-six Jewish companies were formed.​

3.Q. What measures have been taken to bring the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will safeguard the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion? What are the effects of these measures?

A. The Palestinian Citizenship Order in Council which was made in August, 1925, provides for "the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by persons habitually resident in the country who were Ottoman subjects, and persons who were foreign subjects and take up permanent residence."​

Clearly, prior to 1948, the conflict was internal.​

Is that, in fact, true? I do not believe it is. There is a question of citizenship.

International law, article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne, and the citizenship order of 1925 all agree. Those normally living in Palestine at the time of its creation had the nationality of Palestinian and were citizens of Palestine. There can be no dispute on this issue.

On the other hand, there are problems with the citizenship of those who were brought into Palestine by the World Zionist Organization. The Zionists did not import these settlers to be Palestinians but to populate their planned Jewish state. The settlers did not live with the Palestinians but in colonies served/governed by their own separate institutions. Neither the Zionists nor the settlers had any allegiance to Palestine.

There was never any intent for the settlers to be Palestinians.

ALIEN
:
By contrast, an "alien" is generally understood to be a foreigner -- a person who comes from a foreign country -- who does not owe allegiance to our country.

Definitions Alien Immigrant Illegal Alien Undocumented Immigrant​

I don't see how battles between the native population and colonial settlers can be defined as a civil war.

(COMMENT)

The "the native population" and the "colonial settlers" (using your words not the correct terminology) derived their citizenship from the very same source. "The acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by persons habitually resident in the country who were Ottoman subjects, and persons who were foreign subjects and take up permanent residence."

This language is the applicable and correct terminology to use; NOT American law example you point out.

“Illegal alien” is not a legal term. An alien is defined as anyone who is not a citizen or national of the United States. However, “illegal alien” is not a legal term in the Immigration and Nationality Act. For some, the use of the term “illegal alien” is likely based on a misconception that an immigrant’s very presence in the United States is a criminal violation of the law. While the act of entering the country without inspection is a federal misdemeanor, and for repeat offenders could be a felony, the status of being present in the United States without a visa is not an ongoing criminal violation.
SOURCE:
No Human Being is Illegal: Why use of the term “illegal alien” is inaccurate, offensive, and should be eliminated from our public discourse.
by Shahid Haque-Hausrath | Feb 5, 2009 |​

In terms of the "Civil War" --- it does not matter what either side believes to be valid. After all, the outcome of the armed conflict, over the issue, will settle that. What is important is understanding the source of the "citizenship." It does not come from the Treaty, but from the Allied Powers, the Council League and the Mandatory. While the indigenous population might differ with the rulings, all the decrees, treaties, orders in council, mandates and similar legal instrumentalities all are derived from the same source; none of which are influenced by the Arab Population.

Most Respectfully,
R

What part of all this refutes anything in my post?

Particularly:

There was never any intent for the settlers to be Palestinians.

There's really no way to determine that.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

These are all interlocking processes. One supporting the other.

P F Tinmore, et al,

First, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne is not "Palestine" specific. In fact the language of the Treaty is not even unique. It is derivative from the language used in HM's order --- Palestine Legislative Council Election Order, 10 August 1922.

For the purposes of this Order and pending the introduction of an Order in Council regulating Palestinian citizenship, the following persons shall be deemed to be Palestinian citizens:--

(a)Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the date of commencement of this Order.

(b)All persons of other than Turkish nationality habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the said date, who shall within two calendar months of the said date make application for Palestinian citizenship in such form and before such officer as may be prescribed by the High Commissioner.​

59. For the purpose of this part of the Order the expression "foreigner" means any person who is a national or subject of a European or American State or of Japan, but shall not include:

(i) Native inhabitants of a territory protected by or administered under a mandate granted to a European State.
(ii) Ottoman subjects.
(iii) Persons who have lost Ottoman nationality and have not acquired any other nationality.
​

The Palestine Citizenship Order in Council came into force on the 1st of August 1925; a revised Immigration Ordinance has been promulgated; the Convention between His Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States of America relating to the treatment of American citizens in Palestine was ratified in December.

SECTION III.
QUESTIONNAIRE OF PERMANENT MANDATES COMMISSION,
WITH BRIEF REPLIES.
I.--JEWISH NATIONAL HOME.​

1.Q. What measures have been taken to place the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the national home of the Jewish people? What are the effects of these measures?

A. The direction and objects of the policy of the Government of Palestine in law, administration and finance are unchanged. The visible results of the policy have been tranquillity, increased Jewish immigration, progress of Jewish agricultural settlement. The expansion of industry has been encouraged by the grant of exemption of certain raw materials from import duty (see [pages ] of this Report).

The regulations under the Immigration Ordinance, 1925, set up a statutory procedure for the introduction of Jewish immigrant labour into Palestine. The Palestinian Citizenship Order in Council, 1925, facilitates the acquisition of Palestinian nationality by persons settling in the country, including those who opted for Palestinian citizenship under the Palestine Legislative Council Election Order in Council, 1922. There was a remarkable development of Jewish Co-operative Societies, constituted principally for building, agricultural and mutual credit purposes. Twenty-six Jewish companies were formed.​

3.Q. What measures have been taken to bring the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will safeguard the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion? What are the effects of these measures?

A. The Palestinian Citizenship Order in Council which was made in August, 1925, provides for "the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by persons habitually resident in the country who were Ottoman subjects, and persons who were foreign subjects and take up permanent residence."​

Clearly, prior to 1948, the conflict was internal.​

Is that, in fact, true? I do not believe it is. There is a question of citizenship.

International law, article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne, and the citizenship order of 1925 all agree. Those normally living in Palestine at the time of its creation had the nationality of Palestinian and were citizens of Palestine. There can be no dispute on this issue.

On the other hand, there are problems with the citizenship of those who were brought into Palestine by the World Zionist Organization. The Zionists did not import these settlers to be Palestinians but to populate their planned Jewish state. The settlers did not live with the Palestinians but in colonies served/governed by their own separate institutions. Neither the Zionists nor the settlers had any allegiance to Palestine.

There was never any intent for the settlers to be Palestinians.

ALIEN
:
By contrast, an "alien" is generally understood to be a foreigner -- a person who comes from a foreign country -- who does not owe allegiance to our country.

Definitions Alien Immigrant Illegal Alien Undocumented Immigrant​

I don't see how battles between the native population and colonial settlers can be defined as a civil war.

(COMMENT)

The "the native population" and the "colonial settlers" (using your words not the correct terminology) derived their citizenship from the very same source. "The acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by persons habitually resident in the country who were Ottoman subjects, and persons who were foreign subjects and take up permanent residence."

This language is the applicable and correct terminology to use; NOT American law example you point out.

“Illegal alien” is not a legal term. An alien is defined as anyone who is not a citizen or national of the United States. However, “illegal alien” is not a legal term in the Immigration and Nationality Act. For some, the use of the term “illegal alien” is likely based on a misconception that an immigrant’s very presence in the United States is a criminal violation of the law. While the act of entering the country without inspection is a federal misdemeanor, and for repeat offenders could be a felony, the status of being present in the United States without a visa is not an ongoing criminal violation.
SOURCE:
No Human Being is Illegal: Why use of the term “illegal alien” is inaccurate, offensive, and should be eliminated from our public discourse.
by Shahid Haque-Hausrath | Feb 5, 2009 |​

In terms of the "Civil War" --- it does not matter what either side believes to be valid. After all, the outcome of the armed conflict, over the issue, will settle that. What is important is understanding the source of the "citizenship." It does not come from the Treaty, but from the Allied Powers, the Council League and the Mandatory. While the indigenous population might differ with the rulings, all the decrees, treaties, orders in council, mandates and similar legal instrumentalities all are derived from the same source; none of which are influenced by the Arab Population.

Most Respectfully,
R

What part of all this refutes anything in my post?

Particularly:

There was never any intent for the settlers to be Palestinians.

(COMMENT)

The Order: "The Palestinian Citizenship Order in Council which was made in August, 1925, provides for "the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by persons habitually resident in the country who were Ottoman subjects, and persons who were foreign subjects and take up permanent residence."

If there was "never any intent for the settlers to be Palestinians" (your words not mine) then the Citizenship Order would not have further supported the Article 4 Mandate requirement that the Mandatory "shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage;" OR the Article 7 Mandate requirement for the Mandatory "to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine."

You are grasping at straws here --- trying to find some supporting documentation by the Allied Powers that would nullify the Jewish Immigrant authorization for Palestinian (territory to which the Mandate applied) Citizenship.

Both the Arab and the Jewish derive their citizenship from the same authority and power. Thus when they began to fight, they were citizen against citizen (a war between citizens of the same government - that established by the Council and Allied Powers).

Most Respectfully,
R

If there was "never any intent for the settlers to be Palestinians" (your words not mine) then the Citizenship Order would not have further supported the Article 4 Mandate requirement that the Mandatory "shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage;" OR the Article 7 Mandate requirement for the Mandatory "to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine."​

Good points. What the Mandate called for and what the Zionists strived for were two different things. As you say: the Mandatory shall facilitate Jewish immigration, and facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews. The goal was a single, democratic state shared by all of its citizens. This goal was clarified by the 1939 White Paper.

The Zionists, however, pushed for a Jewish state from day one. The Palestinians opposed the Zionist project by the turn of the century. All of the revolts and riots by the Palestinians from that time were in opposition to this colonial project. That opposition continues to today.

The Zionists saw the 1939 White Paper as betraying the Mandate promise of a Jewish state that never was. They continuously worked outside the confines of the Mandate and never accepted the idea of being Palestinians and sharing the country.

Britain folded its tent and left Palestine failing to create an independent Palestinian state as called for in the LoN Covenant.

Why should we accept the premise of Jewish citizens of Palestine in the context of a "civil war" when they themselves rejected that status?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, that would make it very troublesome for the Arab Palestinians. You are not alone; there are a number of constituencies that do not like the term "Civil War" simply because of the customary law definition.

BUT, there are two types of conflicts that are recognized by international humanitarian law:

• International Armed Conflict, COMMON ARTICLE 2 (IAC)
  • “All cases of declared war or of any armed conflict that may arise between two or more high contracting parties, even if the state of war is not recognized."
  • The Commentary of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 Statutes of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, Art. 5, para. 2(g). "It is irrelevant to the validity of international humanitarian law whether the States and Governments involved in the conflict recognize each other as States": Joint Services Regulations (ZDv) 15/2, in: D. ICRC Opinion paper, March 2008 confirms that "any difference arising between two States and leading to the intervention of armed forces is an armed conflict within the meaning of Article 2, even if one of the Parties denies the existence of a state of war. It makes no difference how long the conflict lasts, or how much slaughter takes place."
• Non-international Armed Conflict. COMMON ARTICLE 3 (NIAC)
  • An armed conflicts that are non-international in nature occurring in one of the High contracting parties.
  • These include armed conflicts in which one or more non-governmental armed groups are involved. Depending on the situation, hostilities may occur between governmental armed forces and non-governmental armed groups or between such groups only. As the four Geneva Conventions have universally been ratified now, the requirement that the armed conflict must occur "in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties" has lost its importance in practice. Indeed, any armed conflict between governmental armed forces and armed groups or between such groups cannot but take place on the territory of one of the Parties to the Convention.

"Legally speaking, no other type of armed conflict exists. It is nevertheless important to underline that a situation can evolve from one type of armed conflict to another, depending on the facts prevailing at a certain moment." SOURCE: ICRC Opinion paper, March 2008​

The use of the term civil war is troubling. Who first coined that term and why? Who had the influence to perpetuate that term into common discourse?

I question this term because I do not see a civil war.

(REFERENCE)

A "Civil War" (a war between citizens of the same country or domain) is not so different from what is legally termed under International Humanitarian Law (IHL) as an NAIC.

Ref: How is the Term "Armed Conflict" Defined in International Humanitarian Law?
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Opinion Paper, March 2008​

It poses a dilemma for the Arab Palestinian.

Application of the Convention

In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peacetime, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.
Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

Conflicts NOT of an International character

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

(COMMENT)

Yes, I can see that you might not concur that the conflict evolved from one type of armed conflict to another. What I see, relative to the Question of Palestine is that --- at some point during the period of the Mandate --- the civil strife between the Arab citizens under the Palestine Order in Council --- and the Jewish citizens under the escalated into a NAIC type conflict (Arab citizens and Jewish citizen under the same government). And that the belligerents (Arab citizens and Jewish citizens) were both forming what would later be termed as non-governmental armed groups (NgAGs) (Example: Palestinian Black Hand 'v' Haganah --- neither of which were not included as part of a state's formal armed forces) in confrontation.

I see several break-points in which the ICRC describes as an evolutionary point" or "transition" from one type of conflict to another:

• 1929 - May '48: NIAC Arab Citizens 'vs' Jewish Citizens
• May '48 - Jul '49: IAC Israel Defense Forces 'vs' Arab Joint Forces (AJF)
• 1949 - 1967: IDF 'vs' Arab Jihadists
• 1967 - 1967: IDF 'vs' AJF
• 1967 - 1973: IDF 'vs' Arab Jihadist
• 1973 - 1973: IDF 'vs' AJF
• 1973 - 1979: IDF 'vs' Arab Jihadist
• 1979 - 1988: IDF 'vs' Arab Jihadist and Iranian Alliance (IRGC-QF)
• 1988 - Present: IDF 'vs' State Sponsored Arab Palestinian Jihadist and Iranian Alliance (IRGC-QF)

(DIALOG)

Clearly, prior to 1948, the conflict was internal. Since 1948, the Arab Palestinians have received direct and indirect support from most of the Arab League, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Iranian Quds Force --- so it can be said that the conflict has been both an IAC and an NAIAC.

Most Respectfully,
R

Clearly, prior to 1948, the conflict was internal.​

Is that, in fact, true? I do not believe it is. There is a question of citizenship.

International law, article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne, and the citizenship order of 1925 all agree. Those normally living in Palestine at the time of its creation had the nationality of Palestinian and were citizens of Palestine. There can be no dispute on this issue.

On the other hand, there are problems with the citizenship of those who were brought into Palestine by the World Zionist Organization. The Zionists did not import these settlers to be Palestinians but to populate their planned Jewish state. The settlers did not live with the Palestinians but in colonies served/governed by their own separate institutions. Neither the Zionists nor the settlers had any allegiance to Palestine.

There was never any intent for the settlers to be Palestinians.

ALIEN
:
By contrast, an "alien" is generally understood to be a foreigner -- a person who comes from a foreign country -- who does not owe allegiance to our country.

Definitions Alien Immigrant Illegal Alien Undocumented Immigrant​

I don't see how battles between the native population and colonial settlers can be defined as a civil war.

Then produce the treaty that bestowed Palestinian nationhood on all the people living in Palestine that was signed by Palestinian representatives. Or do you mean the nationality of British mandate Palestinian so there is a dispute on this issue that only you cant understand. There was no legal nation of Palestine until 1988


Strange how the Mandate for Palestine disagrees with you along with the Jewish organisation that actually states the Jews will be given such nationality at the first opportunity. All detailed in the Mandate for Palestine that you have been given hundreds of times.

Have you read any of monte's links that show 60% of all illegal immigrants to Palestine during the Mandate were arab muslim . Now you were saying about Aliens and native populations ? ? ? ? ?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

These are all interlocking processes. One supporting the other.

P F Tinmore, et al,

First, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne is not "Palestine" specific. In fact the language of the Treaty is not even unique. It is derivative from the language used in HM's order --- Palestine Legislative Council Election Order, 10 August 1922.

For the purposes of this Order and pending the introduction of an Order in Council regulating Palestinian citizenship, the following persons shall be deemed to be Palestinian citizens:--

(a)Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the date of commencement of this Order.

(b)All persons of other than Turkish nationality habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the said date, who shall within two calendar months of the said date make application for Palestinian citizenship in such form and before such officer as may be prescribed by the High Commissioner.​

59. For the purpose of this part of the Order the expression "foreigner" means any person who is a national or subject of a European or American State or of Japan, but shall not include:

(i) Native inhabitants of a territory protected by or administered under a mandate granted to a European State.
(ii) Ottoman subjects.
(iii) Persons who have lost Ottoman nationality and have not acquired any other nationality.
​

The Palestine Citizenship Order in Council came into force on the 1st of August 1925; a revised Immigration Ordinance has been promulgated; the Convention between His Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States of America relating to the treatment of American citizens in Palestine was ratified in December.

SECTION III.
QUESTIONNAIRE OF PERMANENT MANDATES COMMISSION,
WITH BRIEF REPLIES.
I.--JEWISH NATIONAL HOME.​

1.Q. What measures have been taken to place the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the national home of the Jewish people? What are the effects of these measures?

A. The direction and objects of the policy of the Government of Palestine in law, administration and finance are unchanged. The visible results of the policy have been tranquillity, increased Jewish immigration, progress of Jewish agricultural settlement. The expansion of industry has been encouraged by the grant of exemption of certain raw materials from import duty (see [pages ] of this Report).

The regulations under the Immigration Ordinance, 1925, set up a statutory procedure for the introduction of Jewish immigrant labour into Palestine. The Palestinian Citizenship Order in Council, 1925, facilitates the acquisition of Palestinian nationality by persons settling in the country, including those who opted for Palestinian citizenship under the Palestine Legislative Council Election Order in Council, 1922. There was a remarkable development of Jewish Co-operative Societies, constituted principally for building, agricultural and mutual credit purposes. Twenty-six Jewish companies were formed.​

3.Q. What measures have been taken to bring the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will safeguard the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion? What are the effects of these measures?

A. The Palestinian Citizenship Order in Council which was made in August, 1925, provides for "the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by persons habitually resident in the country who were Ottoman subjects, and persons who were foreign subjects and take up permanent residence."​

Clearly, prior to 1948, the conflict was internal.​

Is that, in fact, true? I do not believe it is. There is a question of citizenship.

International law, article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne, and the citizenship order of 1925 all agree. Those normally living in Palestine at the time of its creation had the nationality of Palestinian and were citizens of Palestine. There can be no dispute on this issue.

On the other hand, there are problems with the citizenship of those who were brought into Palestine by the World Zionist Organization. The Zionists did not import these settlers to be Palestinians but to populate their planned Jewish state. The settlers did not live with the Palestinians but in colonies served/governed by their own separate institutions. Neither the Zionists nor the settlers had any allegiance to Palestine.

There was never any intent for the settlers to be Palestinians.

ALIEN
:
By contrast, an "alien" is generally understood to be a foreigner -- a person who comes from a foreign country -- who does not owe allegiance to our country.

Definitions Alien Immigrant Illegal Alien Undocumented Immigrant​

I don't see how battles between the native population and colonial settlers can be defined as a civil war.

(COMMENT)

The "the native population" and the "colonial settlers" (using your words not the correct terminology) derived their citizenship from the very same source. "The acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by persons habitually resident in the country who were Ottoman subjects, and persons who were foreign subjects and take up permanent residence."

This language is the applicable and correct terminology to use; NOT American law example you point out.

“Illegal alien” is not a legal term. An alien is defined as anyone who is not a citizen or national of the United States. However, “illegal alien” is not a legal term in the Immigration and Nationality Act. For some, the use of the term “illegal alien” is likely based on a misconception that an immigrant’s very presence in the United States is a criminal violation of the law. While the act of entering the country without inspection is a federal misdemeanor, and for repeat offenders could be a felony, the status of being present in the United States without a visa is not an ongoing criminal violation.
SOURCE:
No Human Being is Illegal: Why use of the term “illegal alien” is inaccurate, offensive, and should be eliminated from our public discourse.
by Shahid Haque-Hausrath | Feb 5, 2009 |​

In terms of the "Civil War" --- it does not matter what either side believes to be valid. After all, the outcome of the armed conflict, over the issue, will settle that. What is important is understanding the source of the "citizenship." It does not come from the Treaty, but from the Allied Powers, the Council League and the Mandatory. While the indigenous population might differ with the rulings, all the decrees, treaties, orders in council, mandates and similar legal instrumentalities all are derived from the same source; none of which are influenced by the Arab Population.

Most Respectfully,
R

What part of all this refutes anything in my post?

Particularly:

There was never any intent for the settlers to be Palestinians.

(COMMENT)

The Order: "The Palestinian Citizenship Order in Council which was made in August, 1925, provides for "the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by persons habitually resident in the country who were Ottoman subjects, and persons who were foreign subjects and take up permanent residence."

If there was "never any intent for the settlers to be Palestinians" (your words not mine) then the Citizenship Order would not have further supported the Article 4 Mandate requirement that the Mandatory "shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage;" OR the Article 7 Mandate requirement for the Mandatory "to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine."

You are grasping at straws here --- trying to find some supporting documentation by the Allied Powers that would nullify the Jewish Immigrant authorization for Palestinian (territory to which the Mandate applied) Citizenship.

Both the Arab and the Jewish derive their citizenship from the same authority and power. Thus when they began to fight, they were citizen against citizen (a war between citizens of the same government - that established by the Council and Allied Powers).

Most Respectfully,
R

If there was "never any intent for the settlers to be Palestinians" (your words not mine) then the Citizenship Order would not have further supported the Article 4 Mandate requirement that the Mandatory "shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage;" OR the Article 7 Mandate requirement for the Mandatory "to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine."​

Good points. What the Mandate called for and what the Zionists strived for were two different things. As you say: the Mandatory shall facilitate Jewish immigration, and facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews. The goal was a single, democratic state shared by all of its citizens. This goal was clarified by the 1939 White Paper.

The Zionists, however, pushed for a Jewish state from day one. The Palestinians opposed the Zionist project by the turn of the century. All of the revolts and riots by the Palestinians from that time were in opposition to this colonial project. That opposition continues to today.

The Zionists saw the 1939 White Paper as betraying the Mandate promise of a Jewish state that never was. They continuously worked outside the confines of the Mandate and never accepted the idea of being Palestinians and sharing the country.

Britain folded its tent and left Palestine failing to create an independent Palestinian state as called for in the LoN Covenant.

Why should we accept the premise of Jewish citizens of Palestine in the context of a "civil war" when they themselves rejected that status?

And the state was solved by giving the arab muslims 78% of the original Palestine land as their homeland. On may 14 1948 the Jews declared independence and asked the arab muslims to join with them in making Palestine a vibrant economical peaceful joint project. Guess the arab muslims lost out and are the worlds beggars.
There was never any intention of calling the nation Palestine, which is why it was referred to as the Jewish National Home.

Where does it state in the LoN Covenant that the mandatory MUST make an Independent state when the people themselves are in

P F Tinmore, et al,

First, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne is not "Palestine" specific. In fact the language of the Treaty is not even unique. It is derivative from the language used in HM's order --- Palestine Legislative Council Election Order, 10 August 1922.

For the purposes of this Order and pending the introduction of an Order in Council regulating Palestinian citizenship, the following persons shall be deemed to be Palestinian citizens:--

(a)Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the date of commencement of this Order.

(b)All persons of other than Turkish nationality habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the said date, who shall within two calendar months of the said date make application for Palestinian citizenship in such form and before such officer as may be prescribed by the High Commissioner.​

59. For the purpose of this part of the Order the expression "foreigner" means any person who is a national or subject of a European or American State or of Japan, but shall not include:

(i) Native inhabitants of a territory protected by or administered under a mandate granted to a European State.
(ii) Ottoman subjects.
(iii) Persons who have lost Ottoman nationality and have not acquired any other nationality.
​

The Palestine Citizenship Order in Council came into force on the 1st of August 1925; a revised Immigration Ordinance has been promulgated; the Convention between His Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States of America relating to the treatment of American citizens in Palestine was ratified in December.

SECTION III.
QUESTIONNAIRE OF PERMANENT MANDATES COMMISSION,
WITH BRIEF REPLIES.
I.--JEWISH NATIONAL HOME.​

1.Q. What measures have been taken to place the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the national home of the Jewish people? What are the effects of these measures?

A. The direction and objects of the policy of the Government of Palestine in law, administration and finance are unchanged. The visible results of the policy have been tranquillity, increased Jewish immigration, progress of Jewish agricultural settlement. The expansion of industry has been encouraged by the grant of exemption of certain raw materials from import duty (see [pages ] of this Report).

The regulations under the Immigration Ordinance, 1925, set up a statutory procedure for the introduction of Jewish immigrant labour into Palestine. The Palestinian Citizenship Order in Council, 1925, facilitates the acquisition of Palestinian nationality by persons settling in the country, including those who opted for Palestinian citizenship under the Palestine Legislative Council Election Order in Council, 1922. There was a remarkable development of Jewish Co-operative Societies, constituted principally for building, agricultural and mutual credit purposes. Twenty-six Jewish companies were formed.​

3.Q. What measures have been taken to bring the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will safeguard the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion? What are the effects of these measures?

A. The Palestinian Citizenship Order in Council which was made in August, 1925, provides for "the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by persons habitually resident in the country who were Ottoman subjects, and persons who were foreign subjects and take up permanent residence."​

Clearly, prior to 1948, the conflict was internal.​

Is that, in fact, true? I do not believe it is. There is a question of citizenship.

International law, article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne, and the citizenship order of 1925 all agree. Those normally living in Palestine at the time of its creation had the nationality of Palestinian and were citizens of Palestine. There can be no dispute on this issue.

On the other hand, there are problems with the citizenship of those who were brought into Palestine by the World Zionist Organization. The Zionists did not import these settlers to be Palestinians but to populate their planned Jewish state. The settlers did not live with the Palestinians but in colonies served/governed by their own separate institutions. Neither the Zionists nor the settlers had any allegiance to Palestine.

There was never any intent for the settlers to be Palestinians.

ALIEN
:
By contrast, an "alien" is generally understood to be a foreigner -- a person who comes from a foreign country -- who does not owe allegiance to our country.

Definitions Alien Immigrant Illegal Alien Undocumented Immigrant​

I don't see how battles between the native population and colonial settlers can be defined as a civil war.

(COMMENT)

The "the native population" and the "colonial settlers" (using your words not the correct terminology) derived their citizenship from the very same source. "The acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by persons habitually resident in the country who were Ottoman subjects, and persons who were foreign subjects and take up permanent residence."

This language is the applicable and correct terminology to use; NOT American law example you point out.

“Illegal alien” is not a legal term. An alien is defined as anyone who is not a citizen or national of the United States. However, “illegal alien” is not a legal term in the Immigration and Nationality Act. For some, the use of the term “illegal alien” is likely based on a misconception that an immigrant’s very presence in the United States is a criminal violation of the law. While the act of entering the country without inspection is a federal misdemeanor, and for repeat offenders could be a felony, the status of being present in the United States without a visa is not an ongoing criminal violation.
SOURCE:
No Human Being is Illegal: Why use of the term “illegal alien” is inaccurate, offensive, and should be eliminated from our public discourse.
by Shahid Haque-Hausrath | Feb 5, 2009 |​

In terms of the "Civil War" --- it does not matter what either side believes to be valid. After all, the outcome of the armed conflict, over the issue, will settle that. What is important is understanding the source of the "citizenship." It does not come from the Treaty, but from the Allied Powers, the Council League and the Mandatory. While the indigenous population might differ with the rulings, all the decrees, treaties, orders in council, mandates and similar legal instrumentalities all are derived from the same source; none of which are influenced by the Arab Population.

Most Respectfully,
R

What part of all this refutes anything in my post?

Particularly:

There was never any intent for the settlers to be Palestinians.

The fact that the Mandate says there was and put in place such measures to ensure they where

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

In any large group, consensus is not usually unanimous. So it was with the four concerned leadership elements: within the Council, the Permanent Mandate Commission, the leadership of the Mandatory, and the leadership of the Arab - and - Jewish constituents.

If there was "never any intent for the settlers to be Palestinians" (your words not mine) then the Citizenship Order would not have further supported the Article 4 Mandate requirement that the Mandatory "shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage;" OR the Article 7 Mandate requirement for the Mandatory "to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine."​

Good points. What the Mandate called for and what the Zionists strived for were two different things. As you say: the Mandatory shall facilitate Jewish immigration, and facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews. The goal was a single, democratic state shared by all of its citizens. This goal was clarified by the 1939 White Paper.

The Zionists, however, pushed for a Jewish state from day one. The Palestinians opposed the Zionist project by the turn of the century. All of the revolts and riots by the Palestinians from that time were in opposition to this colonial project. That opposition continues to today.

The Zionists saw the 1939 White Paper as betraying the Mandate promise of a Jewish state that never was. They continuously worked outside the confines of the Mandate and never accepted the idea of being Palestinians and sharing the country.

Britain folded its tent and left Palestine failing to create an independent Palestinian state as called for in the LoN Covenant.

Why should we accept the premise of Jewish citizens of Palestine in the context of a "civil war" when they themselves rejected that status?

(COMMENT)

The idea THAT: "The goal was a single, democratic state shared by all of its citizens" was not a mandate requirement. It was a possible solution --- but not a mandate requirement. The requirement was the establishment of a Jewish National Home (JNH), and to reward the Arab Bedouin Fighters of the Hejaz (Emir Faisal, et al).

It is also important to remember that the 1939 White Paper was not accepted by the Permanent Mandate Commission of the League of Nations.

The White Paper of May 1939*
Memorandum by
His Britannic Majesty's Government
presented in 1947
to the United Nations Special Committee
on Palestine
Published at Jerusalem, 1947
A/AC.14/8
2 October 1947​

110. The Mandatory’s new statement of policy was examined by the Permanent Mandates Commission at their thirty-sixth session in June, 1939. the commission reported that:

“the policy set out in the White Paper was not in accordance with the interpretation which, in agreement with the Mandatory Power and the Council, the Commission had always placed upon the Palestine Mandate.”
​

They went on to consider whether the Mandate was open to a new interpretation with which the White Paper would not be at variance. Four of the seven members

“did not feel able to state that the policy of the White Paper was in conformity with the Mandate, any contrary conclusion appearing to them to be ruled out by the very terms of the Mandate and by the fundamental intentions of its authors.”
​

The League of Nations Covenant, DID NOT call for an independent Palestinian state. In fact, it doesn't mention (even once) Palestine --- not at all. The tone of the Covenant, set in Article 22 says: "Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized." The words "certain communities" (not identified specifically by name) and "provisionally recognized" (possibly to be changed later --- not a firm commitment or statement of an express promise) are misinterpreted to be a promise of some sort. While the "establishment of a JNH" in the San Remo Convention and the Mandate for Palestine are unambiguous and specifically directed objectives --- being dedicated to a cause of a JNH. Just as there was an obligation to settle with the Hashemite Leadership.

On the matter of the partition and the establishment of individual Arab and Jewish states:

The Royal Commission of 1936-1937​

89. The Commission believed that partition on the lines they proposed, while demanding from both Arabs and Jews some sacrifice of their aspirations, would confer on each of them substantial advantages. A large part of the Arab population would obtain its independence, and would be finally delivered from the possibility of ultimate subjection to Jewish rule. The Jews, conversely, would be secured against the possibility of subjection to Arab rule, and would be free to determine their own rate of immigration. To both peoples partition would offer the prospect of peace. “it is surely worth some sacrifice on both sides if the quarrel which the Mandate started could be ended with its termination.”

90. While not intending that the principle of partition should stand or fall with their specific proposals, the commissioners submitted a map on which the whole of Galilee, the Plain of Esdraelon, and the Maritime Plain as far as a point about ten miles south of Rehovoth, were allocated to the Jewish State. The greater part of Palestine to the south and east of this line would be united with Trans-Jordan. But Jerusalem and Bethlehem, with a corridor reaching the sea at Jaffa, and also Nazareth would remain under British Mandate.

91. His Majesty’s Government issued, simultaneously with the Report of the Royal Commission, a statement of policy in which they announced that:

“The present Mandate became almost unworkable once it was publicly declared to be so by a British Royal commission speaking with the twofold authority conferred on it by its impartiality and its unanimity, and by the Government of the Mandatory Power itself.”​

• • The Mandates Commission therefore advised that the British government should be empowered to explore the possibility of a “new territorial solution”. They considered, however, that it would be unwise to establish two independent states without a further period of mandatory supervision. They therefore recommended that, if the policy of partition was adopted, the Jewish and Arab States should remain under a transitional mandatory regime, either as separate entities or in some form of provisional federation, until they had given sufficient proof of their ability to govern themselves.
  94. The League Council adopted, on the 16th September a resolution authorising the Mandatory to prepare a detailed plan for the new proposal until this plan had been submitted.

In every complex leadership model, when huge issues are discussed for resolution, nearly every imaginable solution might be presented as a possible result. It is even possible that --- at some point a sole Arab State containing a JNH, might have been discussed. It doesn't mean that it was considered a prime or preferred alternative --- nor does it suggest that it was anything close to a possible working solution. It just means that all potential solutions were, at one time or another, discussed.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

In any large group, consensus is not usually unanimous. So it was with the four concerned leadership elements: within the Council, the Permanent Mandate Commission, the leadership of the Mandatory, and the leadership of the Arab - and - Jewish constituents.

If there was "never any intent for the settlers to be Palestinians" (your words not mine) then the Citizenship Order would not have further supported the Article 4 Mandate requirement that the Mandatory "shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage;" OR the Article 7 Mandate requirement for the Mandatory "to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine."​

Good points. What the Mandate called for and what the Zionists strived for were two different things. As you say: the Mandatory shall facilitate Jewish immigration, and facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews. The goal was a single, democratic state shared by all of its citizens. This goal was clarified by the 1939 White Paper.

The Zionists, however, pushed for a Jewish state from day one. The Palestinians opposed the Zionist project by the turn of the century. All of the revolts and riots by the Palestinians from that time were in opposition to this colonial project. That opposition continues to today.

The Zionists saw the 1939 White Paper as betraying the Mandate promise of a Jewish state that never was. They continuously worked outside the confines of the Mandate and never accepted the idea of being Palestinians and sharing the country.

Britain folded its tent and left Palestine failing to create an independent Palestinian state as called for in the LoN Covenant.

Why should we accept the premise of Jewish citizens of Palestine in the context of a "civil war" when they themselves rejected that status?

(COMMENT)

The idea THAT: "The goal was a single, democratic state shared by all of its citizens" was not a mandate requirement. It was a possible solution --- but not a mandate requirement. The requirement was the establishment of a Jewish National Home (JNH), and to reward the Arab Bedouin Fighters of the Hejaz (Emir Faisal, et al).

It is also important to remember that the 1939 White Paper was not accepted by the Permanent Mandate Commission of the League of Nations.

The White Paper of May 1939*
Memorandum by
His Britannic Majesty's Government
presented in 1947
to the United Nations Special Committee
on Palestine
Published at Jerusalem, 1947
A/AC.14/8
2 October 1947​

110. The Mandatory’s new statement of policy was examined by the Permanent Mandates Commission at their thirty-sixth session in June, 1939. the commission reported that:

“the policy set out in the White Paper was not in accordance with the interpretation which, in agreement with the Mandatory Power and the Council, the Commission had always placed upon the Palestine Mandate.”
​

They went on to consider whether the Mandate was open to a new interpretation with which the White Paper would not be at variance. Four of the seven members

“did not feel able to state that the policy of the White Paper was in conformity with the Mandate, any contrary conclusion appearing to them to be ruled out by the very terms of the Mandate and by the fundamental intentions of its authors.”
​

The League of Nations Covenant, DID NOT call for an independent Palestinian state. In fact, it doesn't mention (even once) Palestine --- not at all. The tone of the Covenant, set in Article 22 says: "Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized." The words "certain communities" (not identified specifically by name) and "provisionally recognized" (possibly to be changed later --- not a firm commitment or statement of an express promise) are misinterpreted to be a promise of some sort. While the "establishment of a JNH" in the San Remo Convention and the Mandate for Palestine are unambiguous and specifically directed objectives --- being dedicated to a cause of a JNH. Just as there was an obligation to settle with the Hashemite Leadership.

On the matter of the partition and the establishment of individual Arab and Jewish states:

The Royal Commission of 1936-1937​

89. The Commission believed that partition on the lines they proposed, while demanding from both Arabs and Jews some sacrifice of their aspirations, would confer on each of them substantial advantages. A large part of the Arab population would obtain its independence, and would be finally delivered from the possibility of ultimate subjection to Jewish rule. The Jews, conversely, would be secured against the possibility of subjection to Arab rule, and would be free to determine their own rate of immigration. To both peoples partition would offer the prospect of peace. “it is surely worth some sacrifice on both sides if the quarrel which the Mandate started could be ended with its termination.”

90. While not intending that the principle of partition should stand or fall with their specific proposals, the commissioners submitted a map on which the whole of Galilee, the Plain of Esdraelon, and the Maritime Plain as far as a point about ten miles south of Rehovoth, were allocated to the Jewish State. The greater part of Palestine to the south and east of this line would be united with Trans-Jordan. But Jerusalem and Bethlehem, with a corridor reaching the sea at Jaffa, and also Nazareth would remain under British Mandate.

91. His Majesty’s Government issued, simultaneously with the Report of the Royal Commission, a statement of policy in which they announced that:

“The present Mandate became almost unworkable once it was publicly declared to be so by a British Royal commission speaking with the twofold authority conferred on it by its impartiality and its unanimity, and by the Government of the Mandatory Power itself.”​

• • The Mandates Commission therefore advised that the British government should be empowered to explore the possibility of a “new territorial solution”. They considered, however, that it would be unwise to establish two independent states without a further period of mandatory supervision. They therefore recommended that, if the policy of partition was adopted, the Jewish and Arab States should remain under a transitional mandatory regime, either as separate entities or in some form of provisional federation, until they had given sufficient proof of their ability to govern themselves.
  94. The League Council adopted, on the 16th September a resolution authorising the Mandatory to prepare a detailed plan for the new proposal until this plan had been submitted.

In every complex leadership model, when huge issues are discussed for resolution, nearly every imaginable solution might be presented as a possible result. It is even possible that --- at some point a sole Arab State containing a JNH, might have been discussed. It doesn't mean that it was considered a prime or preferred alternative --- nor does it suggest that it was anything close to a possible working solution. It just means that all potential solutions were, at one time or another, discussed.

Most Respectfully,
R

110. The Mandatory’s new statement of policy was examined by the Permanent Mandates Commission at their thirty-sixth session in June, 1939. the commission reported that:

“the policy set out in the White Paper was not in accordance with the interpretation which, in agreement with the Mandatory Power and the Council, the Commission had always placed upon the Palestine Mandate.”​

The 1939 White Paper was a rather long document. Surely not all of it would be out of compliance. The fact is that some of it was lifted from the 1922 White Paper.

What part(s) of the 1939 White Paper was not in conformity with the Mandate?

 

[P F Tinmore]

FYI, the 1922 White Paper.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies has given renewed consideration to the existing political situation in Palestine, with a very earnest desire to arrive at a settlement of the outstanding questions which have given rise to uncertainty and unrest among certain sections of the population. After consultation with the High Commissioner for Palestine [Sir Herbert Samuel] the following statement has been drawn up. It summarizes the essential parts of the correspondence that has already taken place between the Secretary of State and a delegation from the Moslem Christian Society of Palestine, which has been for some time in England, and it states the further conclusions which have since been reached.

The tension which has prevailed from time to time in Palestine is mainly due to apprehensions, which are entertained both by sections of the Arab and by sections of the Jewish population. These apprehensions, so far as the Arabs are concerned are partly based upon exaggerated interpretations of the meaning of the [Balfour] Declaration favouring the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, made on behalf of His Majesty's Government on 2nd November, 1917.

Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab deegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded `in Palestine.' In this connection it has been observed with satisfaction that at a meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, held at Carlsbad in September, 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims "the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development."

Further, it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status.

The Avalon Project British White Paper of June 1922

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

In any large group, consensus is not usually unanimous. So it was with the four concerned leadership elements: within the Council, the Permanent Mandate Commission, the leadership of the Mandatory, and the leadership of the Arab - and - Jewish constituents.

If there was "never any intent for the settlers to be Palestinians" (your words not mine) then the Citizenship Order would not have further supported the Article 4 Mandate requirement that the Mandatory "shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage;" OR the Article 7 Mandate requirement for the Mandatory "to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine."​

Good points. What the Mandate called for and what the Zionists strived for were two different things. As you say: the Mandatory shall facilitate Jewish immigration, and facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews. The goal was a single, democratic state shared by all of its citizens. This goal was clarified by the 1939 White Paper.

The Zionists, however, pushed for a Jewish state from day one. The Palestinians opposed the Zionist project by the turn of the century. All of the revolts and riots by the Palestinians from that time were in opposition to this colonial project. That opposition continues to today.

The Zionists saw the 1939 White Paper as betraying the Mandate promise of a Jewish state that never was. They continuously worked outside the confines of the Mandate and never accepted the idea of being Palestinians and sharing the country.

Britain folded its tent and left Palestine failing to create an independent Palestinian state as called for in the LoN Covenant.

Why should we accept the premise of Jewish citizens of Palestine in the context of a "civil war" when they themselves rejected that status?

(COMMENT)

The idea THAT: "The goal was a single, democratic state shared by all of its citizens" was not a mandate requirement. It was a possible solution --- but not a mandate requirement. The requirement was the establishment of a Jewish National Home (JNH), and to reward the Arab Bedouin Fighters of the Hejaz (Emir Faisal, et al).

It is also important to remember that the 1939 White Paper was not accepted by the Permanent Mandate Commission of the League of Nations.

The White Paper of May 1939*
Memorandum by
His Britannic Majesty's Government
presented in 1947
to the United Nations Special Committee
on Palestine
Published at Jerusalem, 1947
A/AC.14/8
2 October 1947​

110. The Mandatory’s new statement of policy was examined by the Permanent Mandates Commission at their thirty-sixth session in June, 1939. the commission reported that:

“the policy set out in the White Paper was not in accordance with the interpretation which, in agreement with the Mandatory Power and the Council, the Commission had always placed upon the Palestine Mandate.”
​

They went on to consider whether the Mandate was open to a new interpretation with which the White Paper would not be at variance. Four of the seven members

“did not feel able to state that the policy of the White Paper was in conformity with the Mandate, any contrary conclusion appearing to them to be ruled out by the very terms of the Mandate and by the fundamental intentions of its authors.”
​

The League of Nations Covenant, DID NOT call for an independent Palestinian state. In fact, it doesn't mention (even once) Palestine --- not at all. The tone of the Covenant, set in Article 22 says: "Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized." The words "certain communities" (not identified specifically by name) and "provisionally recognized" (possibly to be changed later --- not a firm commitment or statement of an express promise) are misinterpreted to be a promise of some sort. While the "establishment of a JNH" in the San Remo Convention and the Mandate for Palestine are unambiguous and specifically directed objectives --- being dedicated to a cause of a JNH. Just as there was an obligation to settle with the Hashemite Leadership.

On the matter of the partition and the establishment of individual Arab and Jewish states:

The Royal Commission of 1936-1937​

89. The Commission believed that partition on the lines they proposed, while demanding from both Arabs and Jews some sacrifice of their aspirations, would confer on each of them substantial advantages. A large part of the Arab population would obtain its independence, and would be finally delivered from the possibility of ultimate subjection to Jewish rule. The Jews, conversely, would be secured against the possibility of subjection to Arab rule, and would be free to determine their own rate of immigration. To both peoples partition would offer the prospect of peace. “it is surely worth some sacrifice on both sides if the quarrel which the Mandate started could be ended with its termination.”

90. While not intending that the principle of partition should stand or fall with their specific proposals, the commissioners submitted a map on which the whole of Galilee, the Plain of Esdraelon, and the Maritime Plain as far as a point about ten miles south of Rehovoth, were allocated to the Jewish State. The greater part of Palestine to the south and east of this line would be united with Trans-Jordan. But Jerusalem and Bethlehem, with a corridor reaching the sea at Jaffa, and also Nazareth would remain under British Mandate.

91. His Majesty’s Government issued, simultaneously with the Report of the Royal Commission, a statement of policy in which they announced that:

“The present Mandate became almost unworkable once it was publicly declared to be so by a British Royal commission speaking with the twofold authority conferred on it by its impartiality and its unanimity, and by the Government of the Mandatory Power itself.”​

• • The Mandates Commission therefore advised that the British government should be empowered to explore the possibility of a “new territorial solution”. They considered, however, that it would be unwise to establish two independent states without a further period of mandatory supervision. They therefore recommended that, if the policy of partition was adopted, the Jewish and Arab States should remain under a transitional mandatory regime, either as separate entities or in some form of provisional federation, until they had given sufficient proof of their ability to govern themselves.
  94. The League Council adopted, on the 16th September a resolution authorising the Mandatory to prepare a detailed plan for the new proposal until this plan had been submitted.

In every complex leadership model, when huge issues are discussed for resolution, nearly every imaginable solution might be presented as a possible result. It is even possible that --- at some point a sole Arab State containing a JNH, might have been discussed. It doesn't mean that it was considered a prime or preferred alternative --- nor does it suggest that it was anything close to a possible working solution. It just means that all potential solutions were, at one time or another, discussed.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Royal Commission of 1936-1937​

​

89. The Commission believed that partition on the lines they proposed, while demanding from both Arabs and Jews some sacrifice of their aspirations, bla, bla, bla.​

Why did you waste so much verbosity on the 1937 partition plan?

It was rejected by both sides and abandoned.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

In any large group, consensus is not usually unanimous. So it was with the four concerned leadership elements: within the Council, the Permanent Mandate Commission, the leadership of the Mandatory, and the leadership of the Arab - and - Jewish constituents.

If there was "never any intent for the settlers to be Palestinians" (your words not mine) then the Citizenship Order would not have further supported the Article 4 Mandate requirement that the Mandatory "shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage;" OR the Article 7 Mandate requirement for the Mandatory "to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine."​

Good points. What the Mandate called for and what the Zionists strived for were two different things. As you say: the Mandatory shall facilitate Jewish immigration, and facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews. The goal was a single, democratic state shared by all of its citizens. This goal was clarified by the 1939 White Paper.

The Zionists, however, pushed for a Jewish state from day one. The Palestinians opposed the Zionist project by the turn of the century. All of the revolts and riots by the Palestinians from that time were in opposition to this colonial project. That opposition continues to today.

The Zionists saw the 1939 White Paper as betraying the Mandate promise of a Jewish state that never was. They continuously worked outside the confines of the Mandate and never accepted the idea of being Palestinians and sharing the country.

Britain folded its tent and left Palestine failing to create an independent Palestinian state as called for in the LoN Covenant.

Why should we accept the premise of Jewish citizens of Palestine in the context of a "civil war" when they themselves rejected that status?

(COMMENT)

The idea THAT: "The goal was a single, democratic state shared by all of its citizens" was not a mandate requirement. It was a possible solution --- but not a mandate requirement. The requirement was the establishment of a Jewish National Home (JNH), and to reward the Arab Bedouin Fighters of the Hejaz (Emir Faisal, et al).

It is also important to remember that the 1939 White Paper was not accepted by the Permanent Mandate Commission of the League of Nations.

The White Paper of May 1939*
Memorandum by
His Britannic Majesty's Government
presented in 1947
to the United Nations Special Committee
on Palestine
Published at Jerusalem, 1947
A/AC.14/8
2 October 1947​

110. The Mandatory’s new statement of policy was examined by the Permanent Mandates Commission at their thirty-sixth session in June, 1939. the commission reported that:

“the policy set out in the White Paper was not in accordance with the interpretation which, in agreement with the Mandatory Power and the Council, the Commission had always placed upon the Palestine Mandate.”
​

They went on to consider whether the Mandate was open to a new interpretation with which the White Paper would not be at variance. Four of the seven members

“did not feel able to state that the policy of the White Paper was in conformity with the Mandate, any contrary conclusion appearing to them to be ruled out by the very terms of the Mandate and by the fundamental intentions of its authors.”
​

The League of Nations Covenant, DID NOT call for an independent Palestinian state. In fact, it doesn't mention (even once) Palestine --- not at all. The tone of the Covenant, set in Article 22 says: "Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized." The words "certain communities" (not identified specifically by name) and "provisionally recognized" (possibly to be changed later --- not a firm commitment or statement of an express promise) are misinterpreted to be a promise of some sort. While the "establishment of a JNH" in the San Remo Convention and the Mandate for Palestine are unambiguous and specifically directed objectives --- being dedicated to a cause of a JNH. Just as there was an obligation to settle with the Hashemite Leadership.

On the matter of the partition and the establishment of individual Arab and Jewish states:

The Royal Commission of 1936-1937​

89. The Commission believed that partition on the lines they proposed, while demanding from both Arabs and Jews some sacrifice of their aspirations, would confer on each of them substantial advantages. A large part of the Arab population would obtain its independence, and would be finally delivered from the possibility of ultimate subjection to Jewish rule. The Jews, conversely, would be secured against the possibility of subjection to Arab rule, and would be free to determine their own rate of immigration. To both peoples partition would offer the prospect of peace. “it is surely worth some sacrifice on both sides if the quarrel which the Mandate started could be ended with its termination.”

90. While not intending that the principle of partition should stand or fall with their specific proposals, the commissioners submitted a map on which the whole of Galilee, the Plain of Esdraelon, and the Maritime Plain as far as a point about ten miles south of Rehovoth, were allocated to the Jewish State. The greater part of Palestine to the south and east of this line would be united with Trans-Jordan. But Jerusalem and Bethlehem, with a corridor reaching the sea at Jaffa, and also Nazareth would remain under British Mandate.

91. His Majesty’s Government issued, simultaneously with the Report of the Royal Commission, a statement of policy in which they announced that:

“The present Mandate became almost unworkable once it was publicly declared to be so by a British Royal commission speaking with the twofold authority conferred on it by its impartiality and its unanimity, and by the Government of the Mandatory Power itself.”​

• • The Mandates Commission therefore advised that the British government should be empowered to explore the possibility of a “new territorial solution”. They considered, however, that it would be unwise to establish two independent states without a further period of mandatory supervision. They therefore recommended that, if the policy of partition was adopted, the Jewish and Arab States should remain under a transitional mandatory regime, either as separate entities or in some form of provisional federation, until they had given sufficient proof of their ability to govern themselves.
  94. The League Council adopted, on the 16th September a resolution authorising the Mandatory to prepare a detailed plan for the new proposal until this plan had been submitted.

In every complex leadership model, when huge issues are discussed for resolution, nearly every imaginable solution might be presented as a possible result. It is even possible that --- at some point a sole Arab State containing a JNH, might have been discussed. It doesn't mean that it was considered a prime or preferred alternative --- nor does it suggest that it was anything close to a possible working solution. It just means that all potential solutions were, at one time or another, discussed.

Most Respectfully,
R

110. The Mandatory’s new statement of policy was examined by the Permanent Mandates Commission at their thirty-sixth session in June, 1939. the commission reported that:

“the policy set out in the White Paper was not in accordance with the interpretation which, in agreement with the Mandatory Power and the Council, the Commission had always placed upon the Palestine Mandate.”​

The 1939 White Paper was a rather long document. Surely not all of it would be out of compliance. The fact is that some of it was lifted from the 1922 White Paper.

What part(s) of the 1939 White Paper was not in conformity with the Mandate?

Further partitioning of Palestine after already giving the arab muslims 78% for their national home

 

[Phoenall]

FYI, the 1922 White Paper.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies has given renewed consideration to the existing political situation in Palestine, with a very earnest desire to arrive at a settlement of the outstanding questions which have given rise to uncertainty and unrest among certain sections of the population. After consultation with the High Commissioner for Palestine [Sir Herbert Samuel] the following statement has been drawn up. It summarizes the essential parts of the correspondence that has already taken place between the Secretary of State and a delegation from the Moslem Christian Society of Palestine, which has been for some time in England, and it states the further conclusions which have since been reached.

The tension which has prevailed from time to time in Palestine is mainly due to apprehensions, which are entertained both by sections of the Arab and by sections of the Jewish population. These apprehensions, so far as the Arabs are concerned are partly based upon exaggerated interpretations of the meaning of the [Balfour] Declaration favouring the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, made on behalf of His Majesty's Government on 2nd November, 1917.

Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab deegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded `in Palestine.' In this connection it has been observed with satisfaction that at a meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, held at Carlsbad in September, 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims "the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development."

Further, it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status.

The Avalon Project British White Paper of June 1922

Which is why the original plan was altered and the formation of trans Jordan put in place, this met with the approval of the LoN and was implemented. Read the Jewish declaration of independence to see what was offered to the non Jews of Palestine on may 15 1948.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

In any large group, consensus is not usually unanimous. So it was with the four concerned leadership elements: within the Council, the Permanent Mandate Commission, the leadership of the Mandatory, and the leadership of the Arab - and - Jewish constituents.

If there was "never any intent for the settlers to be Palestinians" (your words not mine) then the Citizenship Order would not have further supported the Article 4 Mandate requirement that the Mandatory "shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage;" OR the Article 7 Mandate requirement for the Mandatory "to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine."​

Good points. What the Mandate called for and what the Zionists strived for were two different things. As you say: the Mandatory shall facilitate Jewish immigration, and facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews. The goal was a single, democratic state shared by all of its citizens. This goal was clarified by the 1939 White Paper.

The Zionists, however, pushed for a Jewish state from day one. The Palestinians opposed the Zionist project by the turn of the century. All of the revolts and riots by the Palestinians from that time were in opposition to this colonial project. That opposition continues to today.

The Zionists saw the 1939 White Paper as betraying the Mandate promise of a Jewish state that never was. They continuously worked outside the confines of the Mandate and never accepted the idea of being Palestinians and sharing the country.

Britain folded its tent and left Palestine failing to create an independent Palestinian state as called for in the LoN Covenant.

Why should we accept the premise of Jewish citizens of Palestine in the context of a "civil war" when they themselves rejected that status?

(COMMENT)

The idea THAT: "The goal was a single, democratic state shared by all of its citizens" was not a mandate requirement. It was a possible solution --- but not a mandate requirement. The requirement was the establishment of a Jewish National Home (JNH), and to reward the Arab Bedouin Fighters of the Hejaz (Emir Faisal, et al).

It is also important to remember that the 1939 White Paper was not accepted by the Permanent Mandate Commission of the League of Nations.

The White Paper of May 1939*
Memorandum by
His Britannic Majesty's Government
presented in 1947
to the United Nations Special Committee
on Palestine
Published at Jerusalem, 1947
A/AC.14/8
2 October 1947​

110. The Mandatory’s new statement of policy was examined by the Permanent Mandates Commission at their thirty-sixth session in June, 1939. the commission reported that:

“the policy set out in the White Paper was not in accordance with the interpretation which, in agreement with the Mandatory Power and the Council, the Commission had always placed upon the Palestine Mandate.”
​

They went on to consider whether the Mandate was open to a new interpretation with which the White Paper would not be at variance. Four of the seven members

“did not feel able to state that the policy of the White Paper was in conformity with the Mandate, any contrary conclusion appearing to them to be ruled out by the very terms of the Mandate and by the fundamental intentions of its authors.”
​

The League of Nations Covenant, DID NOT call for an independent Palestinian state. In fact, it doesn't mention (even once) Palestine --- not at all. The tone of the Covenant, set in Article 22 says: "Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized." The words "certain communities" (not identified specifically by name) and "provisionally recognized" (possibly to be changed later --- not a firm commitment or statement of an express promise) are misinterpreted to be a promise of some sort. While the "establishment of a JNH" in the San Remo Convention and the Mandate for Palestine are unambiguous and specifically directed objectives --- being dedicated to a cause of a JNH. Just as there was an obligation to settle with the Hashemite Leadership.

On the matter of the partition and the establishment of individual Arab and Jewish states:

The Royal Commission of 1936-1937​

89. The Commission believed that partition on the lines they proposed, while demanding from both Arabs and Jews some sacrifice of their aspirations, would confer on each of them substantial advantages. A large part of the Arab population would obtain its independence, and would be finally delivered from the possibility of ultimate subjection to Jewish rule. The Jews, conversely, would be secured against the possibility of subjection to Arab rule, and would be free to determine their own rate of immigration. To both peoples partition would offer the prospect of peace. “it is surely worth some sacrifice on both sides if the quarrel which the Mandate started could be ended with its termination.”

90. While not intending that the principle of partition should stand or fall with their specific proposals, the commissioners submitted a map on which the whole of Galilee, the Plain of Esdraelon, and the Maritime Plain as far as a point about ten miles south of Rehovoth, were allocated to the Jewish State. The greater part of Palestine to the south and east of this line would be united with Trans-Jordan. But Jerusalem and Bethlehem, with a corridor reaching the sea at Jaffa, and also Nazareth would remain under British Mandate.

91. His Majesty’s Government issued, simultaneously with the Report of the Royal Commission, a statement of policy in which they announced that:

“The present Mandate became almost unworkable once it was publicly declared to be so by a British Royal commission speaking with the twofold authority conferred on it by its impartiality and its unanimity, and by the Government of the Mandatory Power itself.”​

• • The Mandates Commission therefore advised that the British government should be empowered to explore the possibility of a “new territorial solution”. They considered, however, that it would be unwise to establish two independent states without a further period of mandatory supervision. They therefore recommended that, if the policy of partition was adopted, the Jewish and Arab States should remain under a transitional mandatory regime, either as separate entities or in some form of provisional federation, until they had given sufficient proof of their ability to govern themselves.
  94. The League Council adopted, on the 16th September a resolution authorising the Mandatory to prepare a detailed plan for the new proposal until this plan had been submitted.

In every complex leadership model, when huge issues are discussed for resolution, nearly every imaginable solution might be presented as a possible result. It is even possible that --- at some point a sole Arab State containing a JNH, might have been discussed. It doesn't mean that it was considered a prime or preferred alternative --- nor does it suggest that it was anything close to a possible working solution. It just means that all potential solutions were, at one time or another, discussed.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Royal Commission of 1936-1937

89. The Commission believed that partition on the lines they proposed, while demanding from both Arabs and Jews some sacrifice of their aspirations, bla, bla, bla.​

Why did you waste so much verbosity on the 1937 partition plan?

It was rejected by both sides and abandoned.

Because it shows that moves were being made to sort the problems caused by pan arab nationalism

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

These are all interlocking processes. One supporting the other.

P F Tinmore, et al,

First, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne is not "Palestine" specific. In fact the language of the Treaty is not even unique. It is derivative from the language used in HM's order --- Palestine Legislative Council Election Order, 10 August 1922.

For the purposes of this Order and pending the introduction of an Order in Council regulating Palestinian citizenship, the following persons shall be deemed to be Palestinian citizens:--

(a)Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the date of commencement of this Order.

(b)All persons of other than Turkish nationality habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the said date, who shall within two calendar months of the said date make application for Palestinian citizenship in such form and before such officer as may be prescribed by the High Commissioner.​

59. For the purpose of this part of the Order the expression "foreigner" means any person who is a national or subject of a European or American State or of Japan, but shall not include:

(i) Native inhabitants of a territory protected by or administered under a mandate granted to a European State.
(ii) Ottoman subjects.
(iii) Persons who have lost Ottoman nationality and have not acquired any other nationality.
​

The Palestine Citizenship Order in Council came into force on the 1st of August 1925; a revised Immigration Ordinance has been promulgated; the Convention between His Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States of America relating to the treatment of American citizens in Palestine was ratified in December.

SECTION III.
QUESTIONNAIRE OF PERMANENT MANDATES COMMISSION,
WITH BRIEF REPLIES.
I.--JEWISH NATIONAL HOME.​

1.Q. What measures have been taken to place the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the national home of the Jewish people? What are the effects of these measures?

A. The direction and objects of the policy of the Government of Palestine in law, administration and finance are unchanged. The visible results of the policy have been tranquillity, increased Jewish immigration, progress of Jewish agricultural settlement. The expansion of industry has been encouraged by the grant of exemption of certain raw materials from import duty (see [pages ] of this Report).

The regulations under the Immigration Ordinance, 1925, set up a statutory procedure for the introduction of Jewish immigrant labour into Palestine. The Palestinian Citizenship Order in Council, 1925, facilitates the acquisition of Palestinian nationality by persons settling in the country, including those who opted for Palestinian citizenship under the Palestine Legislative Council Election Order in Council, 1922. There was a remarkable development of Jewish Co-operative Societies, constituted principally for building, agricultural and mutual credit purposes. Twenty-six Jewish companies were formed.​

3.Q. What measures have been taken to bring the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will safeguard the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion? What are the effects of these measures?

A. The Palestinian Citizenship Order in Council which was made in August, 1925, provides for "the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by persons habitually resident in the country who were Ottoman subjects, and persons who were foreign subjects and take up permanent residence."​

Clearly, prior to 1948, the conflict was internal.​

Is that, in fact, true? I do not believe it is. There is a question of citizenship.

International law, article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne, and the citizenship order of 1925 all agree. Those normally living in Palestine at the time of its creation had the nationality of Palestinian and were citizens of Palestine. There can be no dispute on this issue.

On the other hand, there are problems with the citizenship of those who were brought into Palestine by the World Zionist Organization. The Zionists did not import these settlers to be Palestinians but to populate their planned Jewish state. The settlers did not live with the Palestinians but in colonies served/governed by their own separate institutions. Neither the Zionists nor the settlers had any allegiance to Palestine.

There was never any intent for the settlers to be Palestinians.

ALIEN
:
By contrast, an "alien" is generally understood to be a foreigner -- a person who comes from a foreign country -- who does not owe allegiance to our country.

Definitions Alien Immigrant Illegal Alien Undocumented Immigrant​

I don't see how battles between the native population and colonial settlers can be defined as a civil war.

(COMMENT)

The "the native population" and the "colonial settlers" (using your words not the correct terminology) derived their citizenship from the very same source. "The acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by persons habitually resident in the country who were Ottoman subjects, and persons who were foreign subjects and take up permanent residence."

This language is the applicable and correct terminology to use; NOT American law example you point out.

“Illegal alien” is not a legal term. An alien is defined as anyone who is not a citizen or national of the United States. However, “illegal alien” is not a legal term in the Immigration and Nationality Act. For some, the use of the term “illegal alien” is likely based on a misconception that an immigrant’s very presence in the United States is a criminal violation of the law. While the act of entering the country without inspection is a federal misdemeanor, and for repeat offenders could be a felony, the status of being present in the United States without a visa is not an ongoing criminal violation.
SOURCE:
No Human Being is Illegal: Why use of the term “illegal alien” is inaccurate, offensive, and should be eliminated from our public discourse.
by Shahid Haque-Hausrath | Feb 5, 2009 |​

In terms of the "Civil War" --- it does not matter what either side believes to be valid. After all, the outcome of the armed conflict, over the issue, will settle that. What is important is understanding the source of the "citizenship." It does not come from the Treaty, but from the Allied Powers, the Council League and the Mandatory. While the indigenous population might differ with the rulings, all the decrees, treaties, orders in council, mandates and similar legal instrumentalities all are derived from the same source; none of which are influenced by the Arab Population.

Most Respectfully,
R

What part of all this refutes anything in my post?

Particularly:

There was never any intent for the settlers to be Palestinians.

(COMMENT)

The Order: "The Palestinian Citizenship Order in Council which was made in August, 1925, provides for "the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by persons habitually resident in the country who were Ottoman subjects, and persons who were foreign subjects and take up permanent residence."

If there was "never any intent for the settlers to be Palestinians" (your words not mine) then the Citizenship Order would not have further supported the Article 4 Mandate requirement that the Mandatory "shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage;" OR the Article 7 Mandate requirement for the Mandatory "to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine."

You are grasping at straws here --- trying to find some supporting documentation by the Allied Powers that would nullify the Jewish Immigrant authorization for Palestinian (territory to which the Mandate applied) Citizenship.

Both the Arab and the Jewish derive their citizenship from the same authority and power. Thus when they began to fight, they were citizen against citizen (a war between citizens of the same government - that established by the Council and Allied Powers).

Most Respectfully,
R

If there was "never any intent for the settlers to be Palestinians" (your words not mine) then the Citizenship Order would not have further supported the Article 4 Mandate requirement that the Mandatory "shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage;" OR the Article 7 Mandate requirement for the Mandatory "to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine."​

Good points. What the Mandate called for and what the Zionists strived for were two different things. As you say: the Mandatory shall facilitate Jewish immigration, and facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews. The goal was a single, democratic state shared by all of its citizens. This goal was clarified by the 1939 White Paper.

The Zionists, however, pushed for a Jewish state from day one. The Palestinians opposed the Zionist project by the turn of the century. All of the revolts and riots by the Palestinians from that time were in opposition to this colonial project. That opposition continues to today.

The Zionists saw the 1939 White Paper as betraying the Mandate promise of a Jewish state that never was. They continuously worked outside the confines of the Mandate and never accepted the idea of being Palestinians and sharing the country.

Britain folded its tent and left Palestine failing to create an independent Palestinian state as called for in the LoN Covenant.

Why should we accept the premise of Jewish citizens of Palestine in the context of a "civil war" when they themselves rejected that status?

The White Paper was BEFORE the 1947 partition plan, which the 'Palestinians' accepted 41 years after it was brought up and used it as a basis to declare independence.

BTW, you act as if the 'Palestinians' wanted to share a country with all the Jews , under one government.