Israel's Independence Day!

Israel used terrorism and murdered many innocent people because they wanted a country of their own.

And now they hate the Palestinians because it is like looking in the mirror.

There's a big difference between insurgency to fight for independence and sending Your kids in hope they die - just for the sake of continuing the conflict and a sick idea of honor in murdering Jews.
If Arabs wanted an independent country they could joint the Jews in the fight against the Brits.
However while Jews fought to get rid of occupation, Arabs chose to fight to get rid of the Jews.

The results are showing.

Two groups of people doing exactly the same thing. Your the one that has a need to paint one side that murdered to get what they want as noble and the other side as hideous.
Arabs themselves said they got the ideas for what they do from how the Israelis got their independence. You fight the oppresor.

I'd like to see Israel have it's own country and the Palestinians have their own country. Israelis seem to think they are the 'entitled' group of people and everyone else can suck it. So the get what they get.
False Isaac Newton showing that the real Isaac Newton is the one who had a brain in the right place.

You do not know what Israelis think.

And you clearly have no idea what Muslim Palestinian Arabs think.

Accent on Muslim Arabs.

By all means wipe out 1300 years of Muslim oppression of Jews.
And then continue by wiping out all that happened between 1920 to 1948 by the Muslims to the Jews, to keep the Jews from having a State.

Genius False Isaac Newton.
 
RE: Israel's Independence Day!
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

As usual, You are confusing nationality and the territorial authority.

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

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

-------------------------
I don't see any middle men or monkey motions here. The land was directly transferred to the new states.
-------------------------
In a broader international context, the “Nationality law… showed that the Palestinians formed a nation and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship.”90 The inclusion of Palestinian nationality in the text of the Palestine Mandate was the first step towards an international recognition of the Palestinian people as distinct from the Ottoman people and other peoples. Palestinian nationality, like any other nationality, constitutes the formula by which a certain group of individuals is being legally connected and enabled to form the people element of the state.91
(COMMENT)

Article 30 → Absolutely DOES NOT TRANSFER any territory to any party. The Article stipulates that whatever states are created, the residents automatically acquire that nationality. That is "nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred." For this to become relevant, the territory must be transferred or designed a "state." The territory under which the Mandate Applied was not designated a "State." As have been pointed out many many times, it was considered an "entity." The rights and title went to the Allied Powers under Article 16 (Territorial Clause).

1. The Treaty is an agreement between the Allied Powers and the Turkish Republic. It is not an agreement with the Arab Palestinians as a party to that agreement. The agreement makes NO obligation with the Arab Palestinian; none at all.

2. Article 30 is in the Nationality Section, which deals with the status of person belonging to a particular State. The Treaty of Lausanne was written to cover a multitutde of issues across the entire Ottoman Empire; NOT just the Middle East Region. Article 30 says that the residents will be a national of whatever state the Allied Powers create. The Allied Powers created Jordan, and the residence became citizens of Jordan. But the Allied Powers did not create a State (with the Syke-Picot Treaty Area B) west of the Jordan River.

3. The Allied Powers, under the Authority of Article 16 (rights and title) in the Territorial Section (not nationality) established control through a Mandate System. That system created a caretaker Government (Government of Palestine) pending final disposition. Under that system, the residence of the territory west of the Jordan River, were nationals under that caretaker government (Government of Palestine). But that caretaker government was an "entity" and not self-governing. And it was a government in which the Arab Palestinian declined to participate → in the establishment of self-governing insitutions (not declining just once, but declining three time before the Treaty went into force).​

Yes, many pro-Arab Palestinian Arguments are predicated on the condition that Article 30, somehow, establishes a nation or state. IT DOES NOT. Article 30 says that whatever "State" (not caretaker government) the Allied Powers established under Article 16, the people living within that newly created nation or state pick-up that new nationality.

Most Respectfully,
R
 
RE: Israel's Independence Day!
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

As usual, You are confusing nationality and the territorial authority.

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

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

-------------------------
I don't see any middle men or monkey motions here. The land was directly transferred to the new states.
-------------------------
In a broader international context, the “Nationality law… showed that the Palestinians formed a nation and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship.”90 The inclusion of Palestinian nationality in the text of the Palestine Mandate was the first step towards an international recognition of the Palestinian people as distinct from the Ottoman people and other peoples. Palestinian nationality, like any other nationality, constitutes the formula by which a certain group of individuals is being legally connected and enabled to form the people element of the state.91
(COMMENT)

Article 30 → Absolutely DOES NOT TRANSFER any territory to any party. The Article stipulates that whatever states are created, the residents automatically acquire that nationality. That is "nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred." For this to become relevant, the territory must be transferred or designed a "state." The territory under which the Mandate Applied was not designated a "State." As have been pointed out many many times, it was considered an "entity." The rights and title went to the Allied Powers under Article 16 (Territorial Clause).

1. The Treaty is an agreement between the Allied Powers and the Turkish Republic. It is not an agreement with the Arab Palestinians as a party to that agreement. The agreement makes NO obligation with the Arab Palestinian; none at all.

2. Article 30 is in the Nationality Section, which deals with the status of person belonging to a particular State. The Treaty of Lausanne was written to cover a multitutde of issues across the entire Ottoman Empire; NOT just the Middle East Region. Article 30 says that the residents will be a national of whatever state the Allied Powers create. The Allied Powers created Jordan, and the residence became citizens of Jordan. But the Allied Powers did not create a State (with the Syke-Picot Treaty Area B) west of the Jordan River.

3. The Allied Powers, under the Authority of Article 16 (rights and title) in the Territorial Section (not nationality) established control through a Mandate System. That system created a caretaker Government (Government of Palestine) pending final disposition. Under that system, the residence of the territory west of the Jordan River, were nationals under that caretaker government (Government of Palestine). But that caretaker government was an "entity" and not self-governing. And it was a government in which the Arab Palestinian declined to participate → in the establishment of self-governing insitutions (not declining just once, but declining three time before the Treaty went into force).​

Yes, many pro-Arab Palestinian Arguments are predicated on the condition that Article 30, somehow, establishes a nation or state. IT DOES NOT. Article 30 says that whatever "State" (not caretaker government) the Allied Powers established under Article 16, the people living within that newly created nation or state pick-up that new nationality.

Most Respectfully,
R
Article 30 says that the residents will be a national of whatever state the Allied Powers create.
Indeed.
--------------
The automatic, ipso facto, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​
 
The territory under which the Mandate Applied was not designated a "State." As have been pointed out many many times, it was considered an "entity." The rights and title went to the Allied Powers under Article 16 (Territorial Clause).
The Treaty of Lausanne required the newly created states that acquired the territory to pay annuities on the Ottoman public debt, and to assume responsibility for the administration of concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans. A dispute regarding the status of the territories was settled by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. It was decided that Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties. In its Judgment No. 5, The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, the Permanent Court of International Justice also decided that Palestine was responsible as the successor state for concessions granted by Ottoman authorities. The Courts of Palestine and Great Britain decided that title to the properties shown on the Ottoman Civil list had been ceded to the government of Palestine as an allied successor state.[25]

State of Palestine: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia
 
RE: Israel's Independence Day!
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

As usual, You are confusing nationality and the territorial authority.

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

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

-------------------------
I don't see any middle men or monkey motions here. The land was directly transferred to the new states.
-------------------------
In a broader international context, the “Nationality law… showed that the Palestinians formed a nation and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship.”90 The inclusion of Palestinian nationality in the text of the Palestine Mandate was the first step towards an international recognition of the Palestinian people as distinct from the Ottoman people and other peoples. Palestinian nationality, like any other nationality, constitutes the formula by which a certain group of individuals is being legally connected and enabled to form the people element of the state.91
(COMMENT)

Article 30 → Absolutely DOES NOT TRANSFER any territory to any party. The Article stipulates that whatever states are created, the residents automatically acquire that nationality. That is "nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred." For this to become relevant, the territory must be transferred or designed a "state." The territory under which the Mandate Applied was not designated a "State." As have been pointed out many many times, it was considered an "entity." The rights and title went to the Allied Powers under Article 16 (Territorial Clause).

1. The Treaty is an agreement between the Allied Powers and the Turkish Republic. It is not an agreement with the Arab Palestinians as a party to that agreement. The agreement makes NO obligation with the Arab Palestinian; none at all.

2. Article 30 is in the Nationality Section, which deals with the status of person belonging to a particular State. The Treaty of Lausanne was written to cover a multitutde of issues across the entire Ottoman Empire; NOT just the Middle East Region. Article 30 says that the residents will be a national of whatever state the Allied Powers create. The Allied Powers created Jordan, and the residence became citizens of Jordan. But the Allied Powers did not create a State (with the Syke-Picot Treaty Area B) west of the Jordan River.

3. The Allied Powers, under the Authority of Article 16 (rights and title) in the Territorial Section (not nationality) established control through a Mandate System. That system created a caretaker Government (Government of Palestine) pending final disposition. Under that system, the residence of the territory west of the Jordan River, were nationals under that caretaker government (Government of Palestine). But that caretaker government was an "entity" and not self-governing. And it was a government in which the Arab Palestinian declined to participate → in the establishment of self-governing insitutions (not declining just once, but declining three time before the Treaty went into force).​

Yes, many pro-Arab Palestinian Arguments are predicated on the condition that Article 30, somehow, establishes a nation or state. IT DOES NOT. Article 30 says that whatever "State" (not caretaker government) the Allied Powers established under Article 16, the people living within that newly created nation or state pick-up that new nationality.

Most Respectfully,
R
Article 30 says that the residents will be a national of whatever state the Allied Powers create.
Indeed.
--------------
The automatic, ipso facto, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​
Indeed, even though this had been explained to you on multiple occassions across multiple threads, you’re still befuddled.

Treaty of Lausanne - World War I Document Archive

SECTION II .
NATIONALITY.
ARTICLE 30.

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



Once again, and again, and again, the Treaty of Lausanne did not create your invented, Magical Kingdom of Disney Pally’land
 
The territory under which the Mandate Applied was not designated a "State." As have been pointed out many many times, it was considered an "entity." The rights and title went to the Allied Powers under Article 16 (Territorial Clause).
The Treaty of Lausanne required the newly created states that acquired the territory to pay annuities on the Ottoman public debt, and to assume responsibility for the administration of concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans. A dispute regarding the status of the territories was settled by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. It was decided that Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties. In its Judgment No. 5, The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, the Permanent Court of International Justice also decided that Palestine was responsible as the successor state for concessions granted by Ottoman authorities. The Courts of Palestine and Great Britain decided that title to the properties shown on the Ottoman Civil list had been ceded to the government of Palestine as an allied successor state.[25]

State of Palestine: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

who can edit wiki - Google Search
“Anyone with Internet access can write and make changes to Wikipedia articles, except in limited cases where editing is restricted to prevent disruption or vandalism. Users can contribute anonymously, under a pseudonym, or, if they choose to, with their real identity.”
 
The territory under which the Mandate Applied was not designated a "State." As have been pointed out many many times, it was considered an "entity." The rights and title went to the Allied Powers under Article 16 (Territorial Clause).
The Treaty of Lausanne required the newly created states that acquired the territory to pay annuities on the Ottoman public debt, and to assume responsibility for the administration of concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans. A dispute regarding the status of the territories was settled by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. It was decided that Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties. In its Judgment No. 5, The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, the Permanent Court of International Justice also decided that Palestine was responsible as the successor state for concessions granted by Ottoman authorities. The Courts of Palestine and Great Britain decided that title to the properties shown on the Ottoman Civil list had been ceded to the government of Palestine as an allied successor state.[25]

State of Palestine: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

And that state was created to be a Jewish National Homeland.

Arabs received Jordan, which was ruled by the same Arabian dynasty to which they attempted to cede th land from the beginning.

Simply couldn't see Jews getting a country of their own on any piece of land.
 
The territory under which the Mandate Applied was not designated a "State." As have been pointed out many many times, it was considered an "entity." The rights and title went to the Allied Powers under Article 16 (Territorial Clause).
The Treaty of Lausanne required the newly created states that acquired the territory to pay annuities on the Ottoman public debt, and to assume responsibility for the administration of concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans. A dispute regarding the status of the territories was settled by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. It was decided that Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties. In its Judgment No. 5, The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, the Permanent Court of International Justice also decided that Palestine was responsible as the successor state for concessions granted by Ottoman authorities. The Courts of Palestine and Great Britain decided that title to the properties shown on the Ottoman Civil list had been ceded to the government of Palestine as an allied successor state.[25]

State of Palestine: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

And that state was created to be a Jewish National Homeland.

Arabs received Jordan, which was ruled by the same Arabian dynasty to which they attempted to cede th land from the beginning.

Simply couldn't see Jews getting a country of their own on any piece of land.
Who said?
 
The territory under which the Mandate Applied was not designated a "State." As have been pointed out many many times, it was considered an "entity." The rights and title went to the Allied Powers under Article 16 (Territorial Clause).
The Treaty of Lausanne required the newly created states that acquired the territory to pay annuities on the Ottoman public debt, and to assume responsibility for the administration of concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans. A dispute regarding the status of the territories was settled by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. It was decided that Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties. In its Judgment No. 5, The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, the Permanent Court of International Justice also decided that Palestine was responsible as the successor state for concessions granted by Ottoman authorities. The Courts of Palestine and Great Britain decided that title to the properties shown on the Ottoman Civil list had been ceded to the government of Palestine as an allied successor state.[25]

State of Palestine: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

And that state was created to be a Jewish National Homeland.

Arabs received Jordan, which was ruled by the same Arabian dynasty to which they attempted to cede th land from the beginning.

Simply couldn't see Jews getting a country of their own on any piece of land.
Who said?

 
The territory under which the Mandate Applied was not designated a "State." As have been pointed out many many times, it was considered an "entity." The rights and title went to the Allied Powers under Article 16 (Territorial Clause).
The Treaty of Lausanne required the newly created states that acquired the territory to pay annuities on the Ottoman public debt, and to assume responsibility for the administration of concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans. A dispute regarding the status of the territories was settled by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. It was decided that Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties. In its Judgment No. 5, The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, the Permanent Court of International Justice also decided that Palestine was responsible as the successor state for concessions granted by Ottoman authorities. The Courts of Palestine and Great Britain decided that title to the properties shown on the Ottoman Civil list had been ceded to the government of Palestine as an allied successor state.[25]

State of Palestine: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

And that state was created to be a Jewish National Homeland.

Arabs received Jordan, which was ruled by the same Arabian dynasty to which they attempted to cede th land from the beginning.

Simply couldn't see Jews getting a country of their own on any piece of land.
Who said?


This isn't the comedy forum.
 
The territory under which the Mandate Applied was not designated a "State." As have been pointed out many many times, it was considered an "entity." The rights and title went to the Allied Powers under Article 16 (Territorial Clause).
The Treaty of Lausanne required the newly created states that acquired the territory to pay annuities on the Ottoman public debt, and to assume responsibility for the administration of concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans. A dispute regarding the status of the territories was settled by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. It was decided that Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties. In its Judgment No. 5, The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, the Permanent Court of International Justice also decided that Palestine was responsible as the successor state for concessions granted by Ottoman authorities. The Courts of Palestine and Great Britain decided that title to the properties shown on the Ottoman Civil list had been ceded to the government of Palestine as an allied successor state.[25]

State of Palestine: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

And that state was created to be a Jewish National Homeland.

Arabs received Jordan, which was ruled by the same Arabian dynasty to which they attempted to cede th land from the beginning.

Simply couldn't see Jews getting a country of their own on any piece of land.
Who said?


This isn't the comedy forum.


So what are You doing here pinky?

Come back when You have an answer.
 
Last edited:
RE: Israel's Independence Day!
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, More foolishness...

That place in Article 1 of the Citizenship Order is defined by Article 1 of the Palestine Order in Council.

Article 30 says that the residents will be a national of whatever state the Allied Powers create.
Indeed.
--------------
The automatic, ipso facto, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​
(COMMENT)

PART I.
ecblank.gif

PRELIMINARY.​
Title. 1. This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."


  • The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.
The explanation, just in the last week or two, as to what the term "Palestine" means has been explained a half dozen times. The best explanation might be found in the official renderings ([URL='http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/israeli-forces-shoot-unarmed-protesters-from-across-gaza-security-fence-killing-at-least-15.671366/page-125#post-19756673']last Thursday at 9:08 AM) in Posting #1248[/URL].

It has both links and Call Outs showing where the terms are used.

Most Respectfully,
R
 
RE: Israel's Independence Day!
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, More foolishness...

That place in Article 1 of the Citizenship Order is defined by Article 1 of the Palestine Order in Council.

Article 30 says that the residents will be a national of whatever state the Allied Powers create.
Indeed.
--------------
The automatic, ipso facto, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​
(COMMENT)

PART I.
ecblank.gif

PRELIMINARY.​
Title. 1. This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."


  • The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.
The explanation, just in the last week or two, as to what the term "Palestine" means has been explained a half dozen times. The best explanation might be found in the official renderings (last Thursday at 9:08 AM) in Posting #1248.

It has both links and Call Outs showing where the terms are used.

Most Respectfully,
R
In 1922 Palestine was occupied Turkish territory. In 1925 Palestine was a successor state to Turkey. Different legal status.
 
RE: Israel's Independence Day!
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, I've seen this deception used many times. Few people have actually Seen the International Court of Justice - Judgement No 5, let alone bothered to read it. What our friend "P F Tinmore" has posted is a very typical attempt at misinformation.


. In its Judgment No. 5, The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, the Permanent Court of International Justice also decided that Palestine was responsible as the successor state for concessions granted by Ottoman authorities. The Courts of Palestine and Great Britain decided that title to the properties shown on the Ottoman Civil list had been ceded to the government of Palestine as an allied successor state.[25]

State of Palestine: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia
(COMMENT)


Exceprt ICJ Judgement #5.png



The Mandatory was, the Government of Palestine. During the period 1920 - 1922, either the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration or the British High Commissioner had governed Palestine with the aid of Councils consisting exclusively of British officials.

Any attempt to imply that the ICJ jugmentwas evidence of some sort of self-governing institution (State of Nation) is just an effort of propaganda and misinformation of the first order.

As to the

As to the 1978 Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of Treaties defines state succession as “the replacement of one state by another in the responsibility for the international relations of territory:”

Article 2 (1)
(b) “succession of States” means the replacement of one State by another in the responsibility for the international relations of territory;

Prior to that Convention, which does not actually say how the order of succession works, the Customary Law was derived from the Westphalen Treaty. And that established that the territorial victor decided on the disposition.
The Treaty of Lausanne did not establish an order of succession. Under Article 16, that was left to the Allied Powers.

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

Do not be fooled by Arab Palestinian propaganda or manipulation of the facts.

Most Respectfully,
R
 
RE: Israel's Independence Day!
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You are introducing just another piece of misinformation. In your haste , you even messed this up.

Up until June 1920, when the EOTA handed-over control to the Civil Administration, the territory was enemy occupied Ottoman Territory. It was not until 29 October 1923 that the Turkish Republic proclaimed that it succeeded from the Ottoman Empire. It is known as "Republic Day."

So, in 1922, it was Ottoman Territory. BUT, that is irrelevant....

In 1922 Palestine was occupied Turkish territory. In 1925 Palestine was a successor state to Turkey. Different legal status.
(COMMENT)

In 1925 the Government of Palestine was a British High Commissioner operating under a Mandate.

Most Respectfully,
R
 
RE: Israel's Independence Day!
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, I've seen this deception used many times. Few people have actually Seen the International Court of Justice - Judgement No 5, let alone bothered to read it. What our friend "P F Tinmore" has posted is a very typical attempt at misinformation.


. In its Judgment No. 5, The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, the Permanent Court of International Justice also decided that Palestine was responsible as the successor state for concessions granted by Ottoman authorities. The Courts of Palestine and Great Britain decided that title to the properties shown on the Ottoman Civil list had been ceded to the government of Palestine as an allied successor state.[25]

State of Palestine: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia
(COMMENT)


The Mandatory was, the Government of Palestine. During the period 1920 - 1922, either the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration or the British High Commissioner had governed Palestine with the aid of Councils consisting exclusively of British officials.

Any attempt to imply that the ICJ jugmentwas evidence of some sort of self-governing institution (State of Nation) is just an effort of propaganda and misinformation of the first order.

As to the

As to the 1978 Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of Treaties defines state succession as “the replacement of one state by another in the responsibility for the international relations of territory:”

Article 2 (1)
(b) “succession of States” means the replacement of one State by another in the responsibility for the international relations of territory;

Prior to that Convention, which does not actually say how the order of succession works, the Customary Law was derived from the Westphalen Treaty. And that established that the territorial victor decided on the disposition.
The Treaty of Lausanne did not establish an order of succession. Under Article 16, that was left to the Allied Powers.

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

Do not be fooled by Arab Palestinian propaganda or manipulation of the facts.

Most Respectfully,
R
My post was clear. You are trying to confuse the issue.
 
RE: Israel's Independence Day!
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

This is just another instance wherein you're defending "misinformation."

In 1925 the Government of Palestine was a British High Commissioner operating under a Mandate.
But it was not Palestine. It was a temporarily appointed administration.
(COMMENT)

The Turkish Republic/Ottoman Empire renounced all title and rights to the Ottoman Vilayets of Beirut and Syria, and the Independent Sanjuk of Jerusalem (which the three administrative jurisdictions encompassed the entirety of the Mandate for Palestine). The territory under the Mandate of Palestine. subject to the Palestine Order in Council.

Whatever you mean by rely as you say that in 1925: "it was not Palestine" is, in itself dependent on how you define Palestine.

The Allied Powers defined it accordingly using the authority of Article 16 and the League of Nations Palestine Council; as written in the Palestine Order in Council.

The boundaries were described as follows:

  • South.--From a point west of Rafa on the Mediterranean to a point two miles west of Aqaba in the Gulf of Aqaba.

    East.--From a point two miles west of Aqaba in the Gulf of Aqaba up the center of the Wadi Araba, the Dead Sea, and the River Jordan, to the junction of the latter with the River Yarmuk, thence up the center of the River Yarmuk to the Syrian frontier.

    North.--The northern boundary was laid down by the Anglo-French Convention of the 23 December 1920, and its delimitation was ratified in 1923. Stated briefly, the boundary runs from Ras el Naqura on the Mediterranean eastwards to Metulla and across the upper Jordan valley to Banias, thence to Jisr Banat Yaqub, thence along the Jordan to the Lake of Tiberias on to El Hamme station on the Samakh-Deraa railway line.

    West.--The Mediterranean Sea.
It is what it is.

Most Respectfully,
R
 
RE: Israel's Independence Day!
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

This is just another instance wherein you're defending "misinformation."

In 1925 the Government of Palestine was a British High Commissioner operating under a Mandate.
But it was not Palestine. It was a temporarily appointed administration.
(COMMENT)

The Turkish Republic/Ottoman Empire renounced all title and rights to the Ottoman Vilayets of Beirut and Syria, and the Independent Sanjuk of Jerusalem (which the three administrative jurisdictions encompassed the entirety of the Mandate for Palestine). The territory under the Mandate of Palestine. subject to the Palestine Order in Council.

Whatever you mean by rely as you say that in 1925: "it was not Palestine" is, in itself dependent on how you define Palestine.

The Allied Powers defined it accordingly using the authority of Article 16 and the League of Nations Palestine Council; as written in the Palestine Order in Council.

The boundaries were described as follows:

  • South.--From a point west of Rafa on the Mediterranean to a point two miles west of Aqaba in the Gulf of Aqaba.

    East.--From a point two miles west of Aqaba in the Gulf of Aqaba up the center of the Wadi Araba, the Dead Sea, and the River Jordan, to the junction of the latter with the River Yarmuk, thence up the center of the River Yarmuk to the Syrian frontier.

    North.--The northern boundary was laid down by the Anglo-French Convention of the 23 December 1920, and its delimitation was ratified in 1923. Stated briefly, the boundary runs from Ras el Naqura on the Mediterranean eastwards to Metulla and across the upper Jordan valley to Banias, thence to Jisr Banat Yaqub, thence along the Jordan to the Lake of Tiberias on to El Hamme station on the Samakh-Deraa railway line.

    West.--The Mediterranean Sea.
It is what it is.

Most Respectfully,
R
What part of all that verbosity refutes my post?
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top