Palestine Today

[P F Tinmore]

Friends of Sabeel: Leila Al Marayati

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[Shusha]

Her grandmother's village has been under Palestinian control for 25 years. Her grandmother is not allowed to vote for her village council leadership nor for her federal government leadership. Did she want to talk about that equality, justice and human dignity. Of course, she doesn't.

Also I can't find any evidence whatsoever that there is not a direct Palestinian road from Beit 'Ur al-Fauqa to Ramallah (and therefore a hospital) with no checkpoints. She appears to be feeding us some BS.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You are attempting to scramble the answers such that confusing is injected to the discussion.


I copied and quoted the actual law (not a nonbinding resolution using inexact terminology) for you. In effect, the resolution was written in "politicalese."

I wasn't talking about 1967. This principle applies from 1945 or before. The UN Charter incorporated already existing international law.

I defend the resolution as it stands. What it states, as you know, is first the general principle of inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. That means that you can’t justify holding onto territory merely because you conquered it.

Indeed, I was thinking about the land conquered in 1948.

(FIRST COMMENT)

→ The reference to "combat foreign occupation and aggression" by does not apply to the period between the handoff from the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) (July 1920) and the termination of the Mandatory Civil Administration (May 1948). During that period, the UK maintained control over the territory in question. The Arab Inhabitants had absolutely no control or sovereignty west of the Jordan River. And the Arab Inhabitance rejected every opportunity by the Mandatory to participate in the establishment of self-governing institutions.

→ What does that mean? There was no "invasion" of any kind relative to the perspective of the Arab Inhabitance. They did not constitute an authority over territorial integrity or political independence of any state. That means there was no Act of Aggression against the Arab Inhabitants.

(SECOND COMMENT)

Your insinuation of "land conquered in 1948" is totally baseless. WHY? Because no Arab territorial integrity or political independent state was violated or conquered. It was all territory under Mandate or Trusteeship; depending on which side of the May terminator you are looking at.

(THIRD COMMENT)

The territorial disputes on the Gaza Strip arising from the 1967 Six-Day War and through March 1976 were wiped clean by the Treaty. And the territorial disputes on the West Bank arising from the 1967 Six-Day War and through 1994 were wiped clean by the Treaty. The international boundaries were established by their respective treaties.

(FOURTH COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinians do not recognize any documentation that does not support their position (Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit). The Arab Palestinians have refused to recognize the validity of the Balfour Declaration, The San Remo Convention, The Mandate for Palestine, and any partition recommendations. Every confrontation since the termination of the Mandate (Article 77 Trusteeship transistion, and the self-determinate creation of Israel) is directly related to the refusal of the Arab Palestinians rodent style hunt for power, wealth and their settlement against the Jewish people.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You are attempting to scramble the answers such that confusing is injected to the discussion.


I copied and quoted the actual law (not a nonbinding resolution using inexact terminology) for you. In effect, the resolution was written in "politicalese."

I wasn't talking about 1967. This principle applies from 1945 or before. The UN Charter incorporated already existing international law.

I defend the resolution as it stands. What it states, as you know, is first the general principle of inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. That means that you can’t justify holding onto territory merely because you conquered it.

Indeed, I was thinking about the land conquered in 1948.

(FIRST COMMENT)

→ The reference to "combat foreign occupation and aggression" by does not apply to the period between the handoff from the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) (July 1920) and the termination of the Mandatory Civil Administration (May 1948). During that period, the UK maintained control over the territory in question. The Arab Inhabitants had absolutely no control or sovereignty west of the Jordan River. And the Arab Inhabitance rejected every opportunity by the Mandatory to participate in the establishment of self-governing institutions.

→ What does that mean? There was no "invasion" of any kind relative to the perspective of the Arab Inhabitance. They did not constitute an authority over territorial integrity or political independence of any state. That means there was no Act of Aggression against the Arab Inhabitants.

(SECOND COMMENT)

Your insinuation of "land conquered in 1948" is totally baseless. WHY? Because no Arab territorial integrity or political independent state was violated or conquered. It was all territory under Mandate or Trusteeship; depending on which side of the May terminator you are looking at.

(THIRD COMMENT)

The territorial disputes on the Gaza Strip arising from the 1967 Six-Day War and through March 1976 were wiped clean by the Treaty. And the territorial disputes on the West Bank arising from the 1967 Six-Day War and through 1994 were wiped clean by the Treaty. The international boundaries were established by their respective treaties.

(FOURTH COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinians do not recognize any documentation that does not support their position (Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit). The Arab Palestinians have refused to recognize the validity of the Balfour Declaration, The San Remo Convention, The Mandate for Palestine, and any partition recommendations. Every confrontation since the termination of the Mandate (Article 77 Trusteeship transistion, and the self-determinate creation of Israel) is directly related to the refusal of the Arab Palestinians rodent style hunt for power, wealth and their settlement against the Jewish people.

Most Respectfully,
R

If you look at the rights laid down in any document you will see that the rights belong to the people. (The normal inhabitants inside a defined territory.) Governments and states are not required.

You keep banging on about Israel's unsubstantiated talking point that their was no Palestine or Palestinians because they never had an independent state. Therefore it was OK to steal their stuff. That is irrelevant. The people are the sovereigns in a territory. Sovereign governments and sovereign states are merely extensions of the people's sovereignty.

Now back to Israel's illegal military conquest of Palestine in 1948.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You are attempting to scramble the answers such that confusing is injected to the discussion.


I copied and quoted the actual law (not a nonbinding resolution using inexact terminology) for you. In effect, the resolution was written in "politicalese."

I wasn't talking about 1967. This principle applies from 1945 or before. The UN Charter incorporated already existing international law.

I defend the resolution as it stands. What it states, as you know, is first the general principle of inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. That means that you can’t justify holding onto territory merely because you conquered it.

Indeed, I was thinking about the land conquered in 1948.

(FIRST COMMENT)

→ The reference to "combat foreign occupation and aggression" by does not apply to the period between the handoff from the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) (July 1920) and the termination of the Mandatory Civil Administration (May 1948). During that period, the UK maintained control over the territory in question. The Arab Inhabitants had absolutely no control or sovereignty west of the Jordan River. And the Arab Inhabitance rejected every opportunity by the Mandatory to participate in the establishment of self-governing institutions.

→ What does that mean? There was no "invasion" of any kind relative to the perspective of the Arab Inhabitance. They did not constitute an authority over territorial integrity or political independence of any state. That means there was no Act of Aggression against the Arab Inhabitants.

(SECOND COMMENT)

Your insinuation of "land conquered in 1948" is totally baseless. WHY? Because no Arab territorial integrity or political independent state was violated or conquered. It was all territory under Mandate or Trusteeship; depending on which side of the May terminator you are looking at.

(THIRD COMMENT)

The territorial disputes on the Gaza Strip arising from the 1967 Six-Day War and through March 1976 were wiped clean by the Treaty. And the territorial disputes on the West Bank arising from the 1967 Six-Day War and through 1994 were wiped clean by the Treaty. The international boundaries were established by their respective treaties.

(FOURTH COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinians do not recognize any documentation that does not support their position (Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit). The Arab Palestinians have refused to recognize the validity of the Balfour Declaration, The San Remo Convention, The Mandate for Palestine, and any partition recommendations. Every confrontation since the termination of the Mandate (Article 77 Trusteeship transistion, and the self-determinate creation of Israel) is directly related to the refusal of the Arab Palestinians rodent style hunt for power, wealth and their settlement against the Jewish people.

Most Respectfully,
R

If you look at the rights laid down in any document you will see that the rights belong to the people. (The normal inhabitants inside a defined territory.) Governments and states are not required.

You keep banging on about Israel's unsubstantiated talking point that their was no Palestine or Palestinians because they never had an independent state. Therefore it was OK to steal their stuff. That is irrelevant. The people are the sovereigns in a territory. Sovereign governments and sovereign states are merely extensions of the people's sovereignty.

Now back to Israel's illegal military conquest of Palestine in 1948.

While Rocco displays documents or else speaks of certain documents by name, you never display the documents to support your claims. You only allude to these mysterious documents, which probably exist only in your head. And you keep on speaking of 1948 only, completely ignoring the past 71 years as if they didn't happen at all, or as if time had stopped since then.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Sadly, that is an entirely FALSE assumption. Just ask the HM King of Saudi Arabia who holds the rights of the people?

If you look at the rights laid down in any document you will see that the rights belong to the people. (The normal inhabitants inside a defined territory.) Governments and states are not required.

(COMMENT)

POINT #1

This is a perfect example of how and why the conflict is perpetual. This is a concept only applies to the internal and domestic states.

"For the purpose of paragraph 1, “act of aggression” means the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State,"​

IF you cannot read and understand the law on this one issue, or reject it entirely,
THEN there is not much to talk about.

But there was no “act of aggression” between the Jewish population attempting to establish a state, and the Arab Palestinians which were attempting to stop the self-determination effort.

And remember, the Arab Palestinians rejected the notion of participating in the establishment of self-governing institutions.

The people are the sovereigns in a territory. Sovereign governments and sovereign states are merely extensions of the people's sovereignty.

(COMMENT)

The political and territorial sovereignty of a "state" is an essential quality and character of being a "state."

Oddly enough, within the Arab League, there are two "absolute" monarchy: Saudi Arabia and Oman.

Until 1992, the King of Saudi Arabia was an absolute monarch. In 1992 the King gave the people its constitution; functional under sharia. However, HM the King retains the position as head of state and authority over all levels of government, including what we call executive, legislative, and judicial powers.

The Sultan of Oman has supreme and absolute authority.​

You keep banging on about Israel's unsubstantiated talking point that their was no Palestine or Palestinians because they never had an independent state. Therefore it was OK to steal their stuff. That is irrelevant.

(COMMENT)

POINT #2A

I did not say that at all (it was OK to steal their stuff). We are talking about different things here on a different level.

The establishment of "a state" is something entirely different than "their stuff." The definition of a state is entirely different than "their stuff."​

POINT #2B

Your attempt to ridicule the law in this fashion by trying to use this non-existant "talking point" tag does not work. No matter what the source of the truth, it remains a "truth."​

Now back to Israel's illegal military conquest of Palestine in 1948.

(COMMENT)

POINT #3A

This is a perfect example of how and why the conflict is perpetual. Their was no Jewish conquest of Palestine.​

POINT #3B

If anything you can say that the Arab states of Jordan and Egypt established the precident of territorial conquest. They took the West Bank and Gaza Strip. And that was only resolved in 1994 and 1976. respectively.​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[USAF 2023]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Sadly, that is an entirely FALSE assumption. Just ask the HM King of Saudi Arabia who holds the rights of the people?

If you look at the rights laid down in any document you will see that the rights belong to the people. (The normal inhabitants inside a defined territory.) Governments and states are not required.

(COMMENT)

POINT #1

This is a perfect example of how and why the conflict is perpetual. This is a concept only applies to the internal and domestic states.

"For the purpose of paragraph 1, “act of aggression” means the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State,"​

IF you cannot read and understand the law on this one issue, or reject it entirely,
THEN there is not much to talk about.

But there was no “act of aggression” between the Jewish population attempting to establish a state, and the Arab Palestinians which were attempting to stop the self-determination effort.

And remember, the Arab Palestinians rejected the notion of participating in the establishment of self-governing institutions.

The people are the sovereigns in a territory. Sovereign governments and sovereign states are merely extensions of the people's sovereignty.

(COMMENT)

The political and territorial sovereignty of a "state" is an essential quality and character of being a "state."

Oddly enough, within the Arab League, there are two "absolute" monarchy: Saudi Arabia and Oman.

Until 1992, the King of Saudi Arabia was an absolute monarch. In 1992 the King gave the people its constitution; functional under sharia. However, HM the King retains the position as head of state and authority over all levels of government, including what we call executive, legislative, and judicial powers.

The Sultan of Oman has supreme and absolute authority.​

You keep banging on about Israel's unsubstantiated talking point that their was no Palestine or Palestinians because they never had an independent state. Therefore it was OK to steal their stuff. That is irrelevant.

(COMMENT)

POINT #2A

I did not say that at all (it was OK to steal their stuff). We are talking about different things here on a different level.

The establishment of "a state" is something entirely different than "their stuff." The definition of a state is entirely different than "their stuff."​

POINT #2B

Your attempt to ridicule the law in this fashion by trying to use this non-existant "talking point" tag does not work. No matter what the source of the truth, it remains a "truth."​

Now back to Israel's illegal military conquest of Palestine in 1948.

(COMMENT)

POINT #3A

This is a perfect example of how and why the conflict is perpetual. Their was no Jewish conquest of Palestine.​

POINT #3B

If anything you can say that the Arab states of Jordan and Egypt established the precident of territorial conquest. They took the West Bank and Gaza Strip. And that was only resolved in 1994 and 1976. respectively.​

Most Respectfully,
R

What he will never admit or acknowledge is that the West Bank , Gaza , and E. Jerusalem were recognized as being parts of Jordan and Egypt by the International Community

 

[Mindful]

Booming in “Concentration Camp” Gaza
By
Aussie Dave
-
Welcome to Gaza, where the people are starving so much that…they need to work out due to eating too much and putting on weight (hat tip: Tommy).


One of the “inmates” (AP Photo/Hatem Moussa)
It’s past midnight, but a dozen Palestinians are still running and sweating at a gym in the Gaza Strip.

During Islam’s holiest month of Ramadan, Techno-Gym transforms into a late-night hot spot for young men struggling to stay in shape. In addition to self-discipline and prayer intended to bring adherents closer to God, the month is famed for its lavish meals and heavy desserts that follow a daylong fast.

“I come here during Ramadan to maintain the vitality of my body,” said Anas al-Najjar, a music teacher, on a break from a set of back-muscle exercises. “As I have been training for a while, it’s not good for the body to stop in Ramadan.”

On a recent night, pop music mingled with the clanging of dumbbells and metal weight plates as fitness enthusiasts grunted and panted. The gym’s black-and-yellow color scheme and bright blue lighting had a disorienting effect as the clock ticked into the early hours.

The Ramadan routine, with high-calorie fast-breaking “iftar” buffets, sugary staples and hours of sedentary screen time, is a headache for fitness trainers. A growing group of middle-class men in Gaza are preoccupied with the prospect of gaining weight.

A main culprit is the Ramadan dessert known as “qatayef” — fried pancakes stuffed with sweet cheese or nuts, soaked in homemade sugar syrup. A sliver of cheese qatayef contains some 350 calories. Fitness trainers acknowledge that it’s hard to resist after a day of deprivation.

—

Abu Karsh has supplemented his Ramadan workout plan with intensive cardio sessions for “those whose bodies gain weight fast,” scheduled in the late afternoon before the iftar meal.

With the gym’s hours extended until 2 a.m. for the holy month, some Palestinians come late at night to hone their muscles and work up a sweat.

And it must be difficult having all of those people working out at “Concentration Camp” Gaza’s only gym.

Oh, wait.

 

[USAF 2023]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You are attempting to scramble the answers such that confusing is injected to the discussion.


I copied and quoted the actual law (not a nonbinding resolution using inexact terminology) for you. In effect, the resolution was written in "politicalese."

I wasn't talking about 1967. This principle applies from 1945 or before. The UN Charter incorporated already existing international law.

I defend the resolution as it stands. What it states, as you know, is first the general principle of inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. That means that you can’t justify holding onto territory merely because you conquered it.

Indeed, I was thinking about the land conquered in 1948.

(FIRST COMMENT)

→ The reference to "combat foreign occupation and aggression" by does not apply to the period between the handoff from the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) (July 1920) and the termination of the Mandatory Civil Administration (May 1948). During that period, the UK maintained control over the territory in question. The Arab Inhabitants had absolutely no control or sovereignty west of the Jordan River. And the Arab Inhabitance rejected every opportunity by the Mandatory to participate in the establishment of self-governing institutions.

→ What does that mean? There was no "invasion" of any kind relative to the perspective of the Arab Inhabitance. They did not constitute an authority over territorial integrity or political independence of any state. That means there was no Act of Aggression against the Arab Inhabitants.

(SECOND COMMENT)

Your insinuation of "land conquered in 1948" is totally baseless. WHY? Because no Arab territorial integrity or political independent state was violated or conquered. It was all territory under Mandate or Trusteeship; depending on which side of the May terminator you are looking at.

(THIRD COMMENT)

The territorial disputes on the Gaza Strip arising from the 1967 Six-Day War and through March 1976 were wiped clean by the Treaty. And the territorial disputes on the West Bank arising from the 1967 Six-Day War and through 1994 were wiped clean by the Treaty. The international boundaries were established by their respective treaties.

(FOURTH COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinians do not recognize any documentation that does not support their position (Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit). The Arab Palestinians have refused to recognize the validity of the Balfour Declaration, The San Remo Convention, The Mandate for Palestine, and any partition recommendations. Every confrontation since the termination of the Mandate (Article 77 Trusteeship transistion, and the self-determinate creation of Israel) is directly related to the refusal of the Arab Palestinians rodent style hunt for power, wealth and their settlement against the Jewish people.

Most Respectfully,
R

If you look at the rights laid down in any document you will see that the rights belong to the people. (The normal inhabitants inside a defined territory.) Governments and states are not required.

You keep banging on about Israel's unsubstantiated talking point that their was no Palestine or Palestinians because they never had an independent state. Therefore it was OK to steal their stuff. That is irrelevant. The people are the sovereigns in a territory. Sovereign governments and sovereign states are merely extensions of the people's sovereignty.

Now back to Israel's illegal military conquest of Palestine in 1948.

You're right; The land belonged ONLY to the Palestinians. Keep telling yourself that !

History of Israel - Wikipedia

Maybe your " friends" the Hasidic Jewish Community could help you

 

[Mindful]

^Over the past decade, the gym business in the Gaza Strip has boomed.

Some 120 gyms, two-thirds of which are professionally equipped, are scattered throughout the territory, according to Tareq Abu el-Jedyan of the Palestinian Bodybuilding and Fitness Federation. It’s a significant spike from Gaza’s pre-2000 gym count: a mere 10.

“Sports culture and awareness has gained online, allowing for more gyms to open,” Abu el-Jedyan said. “Today, things are also more professional than in the past … trainees get to know how to exercise right with the correct technique.”

The upscale Techno-Gym opened three years ago, complete with a swimming pool, steam and sauna rooms and modern bodybuilding equipment imported from Italy.

I have posted about this gym before here.

But don’t worry, this is the AP after all, and they have found a way to somehow work these inconvenient truths about Gaza in to the prevailing, misleading narrative.

The gym, which primarily caters to workers in banks, telecom companies and aid agencies who have the cash to spend, serves as a rare respite from the misery of life in the enclave, where unemployment surpasses 50%, tap water is undrinkable and electricity cuts are routine. The frequent cycles of bloody clashes with Israel have compounded daily struggles.

An Israeli-Egyptian blockade, imposed after the Hamas militant group seized power in 2007, and an intensifying political schism with the West Bank-based Palestinian Authority, has thrown Gaza’s economy into free fall, deepening poverty and worsening humanitarian conditions.

“As I live in Gaza under siege and pressures, such beautiful and neat gyms help us replace the pent-up energy with something good for our health,” said al-


Gyms (And Calories) Booming in 'Concentration Camp' Gaza

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Sadly, that is an entirely FALSE assumption. Just ask the HM King of Saudi Arabia who holds the rights of the people?

If you look at the rights laid down in any document you will see that the rights belong to the people. (The normal inhabitants inside a defined territory.) Governments and states are not required.

(COMMENT)

POINT #1

This is a perfect example of how and why the conflict is perpetual. This is a concept only applies to the internal and domestic states.

"For the purpose of paragraph 1, “act of aggression” means the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State,"​

IF you cannot read and understand the law on this one issue, or reject it entirely,
THEN there is not much to talk about.

But there was no “act of aggression” between the Jewish population attempting to establish a state, and the Arab Palestinians which were attempting to stop the self-determination effort.

And remember, the Arab Palestinians rejected the notion of participating in the establishment of self-governing institutions.

The people are the sovereigns in a territory. Sovereign governments and sovereign states are merely extensions of the people's sovereignty.

(COMMENT)

The political and territorial sovereignty of a "state" is an essential quality and character of being a "state."

Oddly enough, within the Arab League, there are two "absolute" monarchy: Saudi Arabia and Oman.

Until 1992, the King of Saudi Arabia was an absolute monarch. In 1992 the King gave the people its constitution; functional under sharia. However, HM the King retains the position as head of state and authority over all levels of government, including what we call executive, legislative, and judicial powers.

The Sultan of Oman has supreme and absolute authority.​

You keep banging on about Israel's unsubstantiated talking point that their was no Palestine or Palestinians because they never had an independent state. Therefore it was OK to steal their stuff. That is irrelevant.

(COMMENT)

POINT #2A

I did not say that at all (it was OK to steal their stuff). We are talking about different things here on a different level.

The establishment of "a state" is something entirely different than "their stuff." The definition of a state is entirely different than "their stuff."​

POINT #2B

Your attempt to ridicule the law in this fashion by trying to use this non-existant "talking point" tag does not work. No matter what the source of the truth, it remains a "truth."​

Now back to Israel's illegal military conquest of Palestine in 1948.

(COMMENT)

POINT #3A

This is a perfect example of how and why the conflict is perpetual. Their was no Jewish conquest of Palestine.​

POINT #3B

If anything you can say that the Arab states of Jordan and Egypt established the precident of territorial conquest. They took the West Bank and Gaza Strip. And that was only resolved in 1994 and 1976. respectively.​

Most Respectfully,
R

Their was no Jewish conquest of Palestine.

Ridiculous. The Zionist plan from the beginning was to take over Palestine for themselves and create a Jewish state. They prepared all through the Mandate for this take over. When the opportunity arose, Israel rolled its military over Palestine attacking and removing the civilians from their homes. It was a piece of cake until the Arab armies entered Palestine.

 

[rylah]

 

[rylah]

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Can you imagine? It's not even a full 1%.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh come on now.

Their was no Jewish conquest of Palestine.

Ridiculous. The Zionist plan from the beginning was to take over Palestine for themselves and create a Jewish state. They prepared all through the Mandate for this take over. When the opportunity arose, Israel rolled its military over Palestine attacking and removing the civilians from their homes. It was a piece of cake until the Arab armies entered Palestine.[/QUOTE]
(COMMENT)

In 1918, when Lord Somerset accepted the surrender of the Ottoman Empire, onborad the Battleship HMS Agamemnon, it was then that thedk. Allied Powers assumed the rights and title of several territories, including the territory.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh come on now.

Their was no Jewish conquest of Palestine.

Ridiculous. The Zionist plan from the beginning was to take over Palestine for themselves and create a Jewish state. They prepared all through the Mandate for this take over. When the opportunity arose, Israel rolled its military over Palestine attacking and removing the civilians from their homes. It was a piece of cake until the Arab armies entered Palestine.

(COMMENT)

In 1918, when Lord Somerset accepted the surrender of the Ottoman Empire, onborad the Battleship HMS Agamemnon, it was then that thedk. Allied Powers assumed the rights and title of several territories, including the territory.

Most Respectfully,
R[/QUOTE]
OK, so? The allied powers did not acquire sovereignty over the territory.

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

What!

In 1918, when Lord Somerset accepted the surrender of the Ottoman Empire, onboard the Battleship HMS Agamemnon, it was then that the Allied Powers assumed the rights and title of several territories, including the territory.

OK, so? The allied powers did not acquire sovereignty over the territory.

(REFERENCE)

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 recognized by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

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

I think I said this already in a recent posting.
(COMMENT • APOLOGY)

You are 100% correct. The Allied Powers only received:

• all rights and title
• over or respecting the territories
• the future of these territories
• being settled or to be settled by the parties​

The reason they did not use the word "sovereignty" because the responsibility was spread across all the Allied Powers that were party to the Treaty. The meaning of "sovereignty" precludes such an arrangement (you are either sovereign or not). Sort of the difference between "joint custody and "sole custody."

You are right, there was no "free parking" listed.

Needless to say, the Arab Palestinian inhabitance were not awarded any territory.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

What!

In 1918, when Lord Somerset accepted the surrender of the Ottoman Empire, onboard the Battleship HMS Agamemnon, it was then that the Allied Powers assumed the rights and title of several territories, including the territory.

OK, so? The allied powers did not acquire sovereignty over the territory.

(REFERENCE)

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 recognized by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

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

I think I said this already in a recent posting.
(COMMENT • APOLOGY)

You are 100% correct. The Allied Powers only received:

• all rights and title
• over or respecting the territories
• the future of these territories
• being settled or to be settled by the parties​

The reason they did not use the word "sovereignty" because the responsibility was spread across all the Allied Powers that were party to the Treaty. The meaning of "sovereignty" precludes such an arrangement (you are either sovereign or not). Sort of the difference between "joint custody and "sole custody."

You are right, there was no "free parking" listed.

Needless to say, the Arab Palestinian inhabitance were not awarded any territory.

Most Respectfully,
R

Needless to say, the Arab Palestinian inhabitance were not awarded any territory.

Do you have a link for that?

You don't make any sense.