Palestine Today

[RoccoR]

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

Well, this is what many people hope the interpretation will be. IF it is true, and Israel is inside a single set borders composed of by both Israelis and Arab Palestinians, THEN there will be some broad implications:

•→ The entire conflict between (strictly) the Arab Palestinians and the Israelis will be a civil war (Jewish Palestinians against Arab Palestinians).
•→ The civil war and the area/territory controlled by either side is not an occupation; since both sides of the conflict consisted of Palestinians having the same citizenship (under the 1925 Citizenship Law). Occupation may be defined as the effective of a foreign territory by hostile armed forces. This is a case where NO foreign military presence exists. (Footnote #1, Page #7, ICRC Occupation and The Forms of Administration of Foreign Territory)

• Hague Regulation (1907) Article 42: Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.​

•→ Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.

There is no dispute. Israel has been sitting inside Palestine since 1948.

(COMMENT)

However, there is the argument that since the Allied Powers held the authority to define "Palestine" --- within such boundaries as may be fixed by them --- that in on 15 May 1948, the Successor Government became the UN Palestine Commission (UNPC) --- and that the Declaration of Independence by Israel was coordinated by the Jewish Agency with the UNPC, --- that in point of fact, the recognition of the State of Israel was a proper delineation of territory just the same as the Hashemite Kingdom off Jordan.

While it is true to say that Israel and Jordan were both once held within the territory formerly under the Mandate of Palestine, there came a point at which they were released from that status.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

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

Well, this is what many people hope the interpretation will be. IF it is true, and Israel is inside a single set borders composed of by both Israelis and Arab Palestinians, THEN there will be some broad implications:

•→ The entire conflict between (strictly) the Arab Palestinians and the Israelis will be a civil war (Jewish Palestinians against Arab Palestinians).
•→ The civil war and the area/territory controlled by either side is not an occupation; since both sides of the conflict consisted of Palestinians having the same citizenship (under the 1925 Citizenship Law). Occupation may be defined as the effective of a foreign territory by hostile armed forces. This is a case where NO foreign military presence exists. (Footnote #1, Page #7, ICRC Occupation and The Forms of Administration of Foreign Territory)

• Hague Regulation (1907) Article 42: Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.​

•→ Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.

There is no dispute. Israel has been sitting inside Palestine since 1948.

(COMMENT)

However, there is the argument that since the Allied Powers held the authority to define "Palestine" --- within such boundaries as may be fixed by them --- that in on 15 May 1948, the Successor Government became the UN Palestine Commission (UNPC) --- and that the Declaration of Independence by Israel was coordinated by the Jewish Agency with the UNPC, --- that in point of fact, the recognition of the State of Israel was a proper delineation of territory just the same as the Hashemite Kingdom off Jordan.

While it is true to say that Israel and Jordan were both once held within the territory formerly under the Mandate of Palestine, there came a point at which they were released from that status.

Most Respectfully,
R

This. This. A thousand times this. This is the legal essence of the debate.

It is not an international conflict -- but a civil war. Civil wars are almost always solved by division of the territory. Not sure if there is an exception to this.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Well, this is what many people hope the interpretation will be. IF it is true, and Israel is inside a single set borders composed of by both Israelis and Arab Palestinians, THEN there will be some broad implications:

•→ The entire conflict between (strictly) the Arab Palestinians and the Israelis will be a civil war (Jewish Palestinians against Arab Palestinians).

You are, again, basing your conclusion of false premise. You say that there were Jewish and Arab Palestinians. The Jewish colonial settlers imported by the Zionists were never intended to be Palestinians. They were imported to be the citizens of their planned Jewish state.

The Zionist's stated goal was to colonize Palestine until such time as they could implement that plan. The Zionists mooched Britain's military to run cover for their settler colonial enterprise. Britain allowed them to build a "state within a state" (Britain's term for the project.) until they had the power and infrastructure to take over Palestine.

Israel's biggest problem, aside from violating international law all over the place, is that it has never legally acquired any land. It sits inside Palestine.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Toronto Al-Quds Day Rally 2017 (From Queens Park to US Consulate)

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Well, this is what many people hope the interpretation will be. IF it is true, and Israel is inside a single set borders composed of by both Israelis and Arab Palestinians, THEN there will be some broad implications:

•→ The entire conflict between (strictly) the Arab Palestinians and the Israelis will be a civil war (Jewish Palestinians against Arab Palestinians).

You are, again, basing your conclusion of false premise. You say that there were Jewish and Arab Palestinians. The Jewish colonial settlers imported by the Zionists were never intended to be Palestinians. They were imported to be the citizens of their planned Jewish state.

The Zionist's stated goal was to colonize Palestine until such time as they could implement that plan. The Zionists mooched Britain's military to run cover for their settler colonial enterprise. Britain allowed them to build a "state within a state" (Britain's term for the project.) until they had the power and infrastructure to take over Palestine.

Israel's biggest problem, aside from violating international law all over the place, is that it has never legally acquired any land. It sits inside Palestine.

Do you have a degree in international law?

 

[RoccoR]

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

Not exactly correct. While it is very coneinitnet for the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) to make such an assumption for the purpose of justifying their argument, the facts are entirely different.

Well, this is what many people hope the interpretation will be. IF it is true, and Israel is inside a single set borders composed of by both Israelis and Arab Palestinians, THEN there will be some broad implications:

•→ The entire conflict between (strictly) the Arab Palestinians and the Israelis will be a civil war (Jewish Palestinians against Arab Palestinians).

You are, again, basing your conclusion of false premise. You say that there were Jewish and Arab Palestinians. The Jewish colonial settlers imported by the Zionists were never intended to be Palestinians. They were imported to be the citizens of their planned Jewish state.

(COMMENT)

Four points need to be made here.

• The decision to facilitate the immigration of the Jewish People was made "by the Allied Powers" during the San Remo Convention of 1920; when the framework of the Mandate was hammered-out. It was NOT the case that the Zionist (whatever you perceive them to be) had the power to independently initiate and effectively facilitate Jewish immigration of those willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish National Home (JNH).

• There was no importation; as if the Jewish were some sort of property (goods or services) being brought into the territory from abroad for sale.

• There was no original intent, by the Allied Powers, to establish a Jewish State; BUT rather a JNH (a Jewish State being only one of several possible solutions to this end). However, the circumstances developing overtime, manipulated by the obstructionists within the HoAP Community, began to narrow the possible alternatives. Whether we talk about the 1920 Jerusalem riots (within the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration) or the 1929 Arab Riots (disputes between Muslims and Jews over access to the Western Wall), the development of the Palestinian Black Hand, or fast forwarding to the 1947 adoption of the first two-state solution [A/RES/181 (II)], the effect was all the same.

• The acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine was always a pillar to the JNH plan; well before the conflict erupted between the Jewish and Arab People.​

The Zionist's stated goal was to colonize Palestine until such time as they could implement that plan. The Zionists mooched Britain's military to run cover for their settler colonial enterprise. Britain allowed them to build a "state within a state" (Britain's term for the project.) until they had the power and infrastructure to take over Palestine.

Israel's biggest problem, aside from violating international law all over the place, is that it has never legally acquired any land. It sits inside Palestine.

(COMMENT)

The concept that Israel had to or must "legally acquired any land" is an aberration on the part of the HoAP.

The ICJ has considered nine different types of territorial acquisition; --- all of which have been discussed in one form or another in these threads. All nine (found in pages 11782 - 1792 --- Duke Law Journal) have some similarity to the Arab - Israeli Disputes in one form or another. But I submit just three for your consideration today:

• Uti possidetis

Uti possidetis, a principle used to define postcolonial boundaries in Latin America, Asia, and Africa, is a doctrine under which newly independent states inherit the preindependence administrative boundaries set by the former colonial power. The doctrine posits that title to the colonial territory devolves to the local authorities and prevails over any competing claim based on occupation. Thus, Uti possidetis is predicated on a rejection of self-determination and assumes that internal, administrative boundaries are functionally equivalent to international boundaries. Commentators criticize uti possidetis because administrative colonial borders were almost always vaguely drawn and did not correspond to the inhabitant populations. Consequently, these commentators argue, reliance on uti possidetis has led to many border disputes.​

• Elitism

Elitist claims to territory contend that a “particular minority has the right or duty to control certain territories.” Conquerors—who, historically, made such claims most frequently—often shaped them in terms of divine rights to rule certain territory. Such claims have become rarer over time because they “run counter to the democratic ideal.” Nevertheless, Elitist claims have a modern and public incarnation in arguments for territory based on superior technological ability—a particular group claims control over a territory by virtue of having the capacity to develop the land’s potential most fully. Such claims are consistent with a labor theory of property law, which grants property rights to the person (or entity) investing labor in the land, thereby making it productive. But for the capable person’s labor or technological ability, the territory’s resources and potential would not be tapped.​

• Ideology

Ideological justifications resemble claims of a “special mission” based in “unique identification with the land” and having inherent “exclusivist overtones.” Thus, Ideological justifications for territorial claims are more appropriately termed ideologically imperialist. Chief examples of this claim are the Crusades, the Ottoman Turks’ eastern advance, anti-colonialism, and social justice, among others. The anticolonial Ideological justification, which argues that colonial borders are per se inappropriate delimiters of territory for moral or legal reasons, is essentially the antithesis of a uti possidetis claim.​

Often, we have heard that the Arab Pales5inian has some sort of "inherent “exclusivist overtones." That is, they hold some special privileged over the Jewish Immigrants under the Allied Powers establishment of the JNH. And they hold that their inherent “exclusivity" overrides Jewish Self-determination or the administration established by treaty.

Similarly, the Arab Palestinian has exerted the postcolonial boundaries claim, as in the suggestion that the borders existed before such boundaries were fixed by the Allied Powers.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

Not exactly correct. While it is very coneinitnet for the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) to make such an assumption for the purpose of justifying their argument, the facts are entirely different.

Well, this is what many people hope the interpretation will be. IF it is true, and Israel is inside a single set borders composed of by both Israelis and Arab Palestinians, THEN there will be some broad implications:

•→ The entire conflict between (strictly) the Arab Palestinians and the Israelis will be a civil war (Jewish Palestinians against Arab Palestinians).

You are, again, basing your conclusion of false premise. You say that there were Jewish and Arab Palestinians. The Jewish colonial settlers imported by the Zionists were never intended to be Palestinians. They were imported to be the citizens of their planned Jewish state.

(COMMENT)

Four points need to be made here.

• The decision to facilitate the immigration of the Jewish People was made "by the Allied Powers" during the San Remo Convention of 1920; when the framework of the Mandate was hammered-out. It was NOT the case that the Zionist (whatever you perceive them to be) had the power to independently initiate and effectively facilitate Jewish immigration of those willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish National Home (JNH).

• There was no importation; as if the Jewish were some sort of property (goods or services) being brought into the territory from abroad for sale.

• There was no original intent, by the Allied Powers, to establish a Jewish State; BUT rather a JNH (a Jewish State being only one of several possible solutions to this end). However, the circumstances developing overtime, manipulated by the obstructionists within the HoAP Community, began to narrow the possible alternatives. Whether we talk about the 1920 Jerusalem riots (within the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration) or the 1929 Arab Riots (disputes between Muslims and Jews over access to the Western Wall), the development of the Palestinian Black Hand, or fast forwarding to the 1947 adoption of the first two-state solution [A/RES/181 (II)], the effect was all the same.

• The acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine was always a pillar to the JNH plan; well before the conflict erupted between the Jewish and Arab People.​

The Zionist's stated goal was to colonize Palestine until such time as they could implement that plan. The Zionists mooched Britain's military to run cover for their settler colonial enterprise. Britain allowed them to build a "state within a state" (Britain's term for the project.) until they had the power and infrastructure to take over Palestine.

Israel's biggest problem, aside from violating international law all over the place, is that it has never legally acquired any land. It sits inside Palestine.

(COMMENT)

The concept that Israel had to or must "legally acquired any land" is an aberration on the part of the HoAP.

The ICJ has considered nine different types of territorial acquisition; --- all of which have been discussed in one form or another in these threads. All nine (found in pages 11782 - 1792 --- Duke Law Journal) have some similarity to the Arab - Israeli Disputes in one form or another. But I submit just three for your consideration today:

• Uti possidetis

Uti possidetis, a principle used to define postcolonial boundaries in Latin America, Asia, and Africa, is a doctrine under which newly independent states inherit the preindependence administrative boundaries set by the former colonial power. The doctrine posits that title to the colonial territory devolves to the local authorities and prevails over any competing claim based on occupation. Thus, Uti possidetis is predicated on a rejection of self-determination and assumes that internal, administrative boundaries are functionally equivalent to international boundaries. Commentators criticize uti possidetis because administrative colonial borders were almost always vaguely drawn and did not correspond to the inhabitant populations. Consequently, these commentators argue, reliance on uti possidetis has led to many border disputes.​

• Elitism

Elitist claims to territory contend that a “particular minority has the right or duty to control certain territories.” Conquerors—who, historically, made such claims most frequently—often shaped them in terms of divine rights to rule certain territory. Such claims have become rarer over time because they “run counter to the democratic ideal.” Nevertheless, Elitist claims have a modern and public incarnation in arguments for territory based on superior technological ability—a particular group claims control over a territory by virtue of having the capacity to develop the land’s potential most fully. Such claims are consistent with a labor theory of property law, which grants property rights to the person (or entity) investing labor in the land, thereby making it productive. But for the capable person’s labor or technological ability, the territory’s resources and potential would not be tapped.​

• Ideology

Ideological justifications resemble claims of a “special mission” based in “unique identification with the land” and having inherent “exclusivist overtones.” Thus, Ideological justifications for territorial claims are more appropriately termed ideologically imperialist. Chief examples of this claim are the Crusades, the Ottoman Turks’ eastern advance, anti-colonialism, and social justice, among others. The anticolonial Ideological justification, which argues that colonial borders are per se inappropriate delimiters of territory for moral or legal reasons, is essentially the antithesis of a uti possidetis claim.​

Often, we have heard that the Arab Pales5inian has some sort of "inherent “exclusivist overtones." That is, they hold some special privileged over the Jewish Immigrants under the Allied Powers establishment of the JNH. And they hold that their inherent “exclusivity" overrides Jewish Self-determination or the administration established by treaty.

Similarly, the Arab Palestinian has exerted the postcolonial boundaries claim, as in the suggestion that the borders existed before such boundaries were fixed by the Allied Powers.

Most Respectfully,
R

Yeah, whatever. Palestine's international borders were defined by post war treaties. The Treaty of Lausanne ceded the land to the respective successor states. The Palestinians became the citizens of Palestine. The Palestinians, as the people of the place, have the universal list of inherent, inalienable rights. These rights have been reaffirmed by subsequent UN resolutions.

The British Mandate was imposed on them by military force. The immigration laws, and other laws and policies, were imposed on them by military force. The Zionist's importing foreign settlers by the boatload was imposed on them by military force.

It is interesting that you do not see any violations here. It must be that old government employee attitude.

 

[Shusha]

The Palestinians became the citizens of Palestine. The Palestinians, as the people of the place, have the universal list of inherent, inalienable rights.

There are two distinct groups within the borders of Palestine and as you (correctly) point out became Palestinian citizens -- Jews and Arabs. It is a civil war. Therefore there is no occupation. There are no other actors.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

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

Not exactly correct. While it is very coneinitnet for the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) to make such an assumption for the purpose of justifying their argument, the facts are entirely different.

Well, this is what many people hope the interpretation will be. IF it is true, and Israel is inside a single set borders composed of by both Israelis and Arab Palestinians, THEN there will be some broad implications:

•→ The entire conflict between (strictly) the Arab Palestinians and the Israelis will be a civil war (Jewish Palestinians against Arab Palestinians).

You are, again, basing your conclusion of false premise. You say that there were Jewish and Arab Palestinians. The Jewish colonial settlers imported by the Zionists were never intended to be Palestinians. They were imported to be the citizens of their planned Jewish state.

(COMMENT)

Four points need to be made here.

• The decision to facilitate the immigration of the Jewish People was made "by the Allied Powers" during the San Remo Convention of 1920; when the framework of the Mandate was hammered-out. It was NOT the case that the Zionist (whatever you perceive them to be) had the power to independently initiate and effectively facilitate Jewish immigration of those willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish National Home (JNH).

• There was no importation; as if the Jewish were some sort of property (goods or services) being brought into the territory from abroad for sale.

• There was no original intent, by the Allied Powers, to establish a Jewish State; BUT rather a JNH (a Jewish State being only one of several possible solutions to this end). However, the circumstances developing overtime, manipulated by the obstructionists within the HoAP Community, began to narrow the possible alternatives. Whether we talk about the 1920 Jerusalem riots (within the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration) or the 1929 Arab Riots (disputes between Muslims and Jews over access to the Western Wall), the development of the Palestinian Black Hand, or fast forwarding to the 1947 adoption of the first two-state solution [A/RES/181 (II)], the effect was all the same.

• The acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine was always a pillar to the JNH plan; well before the conflict erupted between the Jewish and Arab People.​

The Zionist's stated goal was to colonize Palestine until such time as they could implement that plan. The Zionists mooched Britain's military to run cover for their settler colonial enterprise. Britain allowed them to build a "state within a state" (Britain's term for the project.) until they had the power and infrastructure to take over Palestine.

Israel's biggest problem, aside from violating international law all over the place, is that it has never legally acquired any land. It sits inside Palestine.

(COMMENT)

The concept that Israel had to or must "legally acquired any land" is an aberration on the part of the HoAP.

The ICJ has considered nine different types of territorial acquisition; --- all of which have been discussed in one form or another in these threads. All nine (found in pages 11782 - 1792 --- Duke Law Journal) have some similarity to the Arab - Israeli Disputes in one form or another. But I submit just three for your consideration today:

• Uti possidetis

Uti possidetis, a principle used to define postcolonial boundaries in Latin America, Asia, and Africa, is a doctrine under which newly independent states inherit the preindependence administrative boundaries set by the former colonial power. The doctrine posits that title to the colonial territory devolves to the local authorities and prevails over any competing claim based on occupation. Thus, Uti possidetis is predicated on a rejection of self-determination and assumes that internal, administrative boundaries are functionally equivalent to international boundaries. Commentators criticize uti possidetis because administrative colonial borders were almost always vaguely drawn and did not correspond to the inhabitant populations. Consequently, these commentators argue, reliance on uti possidetis has led to many border disputes.​

• Elitism

Elitist claims to territory contend that a “particular minority has the right or duty to control certain territories.” Conquerors—who, historically, made such claims most frequently—often shaped them in terms of divine rights to rule certain territory. Such claims have become rarer over time because they “run counter to the democratic ideal.” Nevertheless, Elitist claims have a modern and public incarnation in arguments for territory based on superior technological ability—a particular group claims control over a territory by virtue of having the capacity to develop the land’s potential most fully. Such claims are consistent with a labor theory of property law, which grants property rights to the person (or entity) investing labor in the land, thereby making it productive. But for the capable person’s labor or technological ability, the territory’s resources and potential would not be tapped.​

• Ideology

Ideological justifications resemble claims of a “special mission” based in “unique identification with the land” and having inherent “exclusivist overtones.” Thus, Ideological justifications for territorial claims are more appropriately termed ideologically imperialist. Chief examples of this claim are the Crusades, the Ottoman Turks’ eastern advance, anti-colonialism, and social justice, among others. The anticolonial Ideological justification, which argues that colonial borders are per se inappropriate delimiters of territory for moral or legal reasons, is essentially the antithesis of a uti possidetis claim.​

Often, we have heard that the Arab Pales5inian has some sort of "inherent “exclusivist overtones." That is, they hold some special privileged over the Jewish Immigrants under the Allied Powers establishment of the JNH. And they hold that their inherent “exclusivity" overrides Jewish Self-determination or the administration established by treaty.

Similarly, the Arab Palestinian has exerted the postcolonial boundaries claim, as in the suggestion that the borders existed before such boundaries were fixed by the Allied Powers.

Most Respectfully,
R

Yeah, whatever. Palestine's international borders were defined by post war treaties. The Treaty of Lausanne ceded the land to the respective successor states. The Palestinians became the citizens of Palestine. The Palestinians, as the people of the place, have the universal list of inherent, inalienable rights. These rights have been reaffirmed by subsequent UN resolutions.

The British Mandate was imposed on them by military force. The immigration laws, and other laws and policies, were imposed on them by military force. The Zionist's importing foreign settlers by the boatload was imposed on them by military force.

It is interesting that you do not see any violations here. It must be that old government employee attitude.

Britain won the land from the Ottoman Empire. To the victor goes the spoils.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

Not exactly correct. While it is very coneinitnet for the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) to make such an assumption for the purpose of justifying their argument, the facts are entirely different.

Well, this is what many people hope the interpretation will be. IF it is true, and Israel is inside a single set borders composed of by both Israelis and Arab Palestinians, THEN there will be some broad implications:

•→ The entire conflict between (strictly) the Arab Palestinians and the Israelis will be a civil war (Jewish Palestinians against Arab Palestinians).

You are, again, basing your conclusion of false premise. You say that there were Jewish and Arab Palestinians. The Jewish colonial settlers imported by the Zionists were never intended to be Palestinians. They were imported to be the citizens of their planned Jewish state.

(COMMENT)

Four points need to be made here.

• The decision to facilitate the immigration of the Jewish People was made "by the Allied Powers" during the San Remo Convention of 1920; when the framework of the Mandate was hammered-out. It was NOT the case that the Zionist (whatever you perceive them to be) had the power to independently initiate and effectively facilitate Jewish immigration of those willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish National Home (JNH).

• There was no importation; as if the Jewish were some sort of property (goods or services) being brought into the territory from abroad for sale.

• There was no original intent, by the Allied Powers, to establish a Jewish State; BUT rather a JNH (a Jewish State being only one of several possible solutions to this end). However, the circumstances developing overtime, manipulated by the obstructionists within the HoAP Community, began to narrow the possible alternatives. Whether we talk about the 1920 Jerusalem riots (within the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration) or the 1929 Arab Riots (disputes between Muslims and Jews over access to the Western Wall), the development of the Palestinian Black Hand, or fast forwarding to the 1947 adoption of the first two-state solution [A/RES/181 (II)], the effect was all the same.

• The acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine was always a pillar to the JNH plan; well before the conflict erupted between the Jewish and Arab People.​

The Zionist's stated goal was to colonize Palestine until such time as they could implement that plan. The Zionists mooched Britain's military to run cover for their settler colonial enterprise. Britain allowed them to build a "state within a state" (Britain's term for the project.) until they had the power and infrastructure to take over Palestine.

Israel's biggest problem, aside from violating international law all over the place, is that it has never legally acquired any land. It sits inside Palestine.

(COMMENT)

The concept that Israel had to or must "legally acquired any land" is an aberration on the part of the HoAP.

The ICJ has considered nine different types of territorial acquisition; --- all of which have been discussed in one form or another in these threads. All nine (found in pages 11782 - 1792 --- Duke Law Journal) have some similarity to the Arab - Israeli Disputes in one form or another. But I submit just three for your consideration today:

• Uti possidetis

Uti possidetis, a principle used to define postcolonial boundaries in Latin America, Asia, and Africa, is a doctrine under which newly independent states inherit the preindependence administrative boundaries set by the former colonial power. The doctrine posits that title to the colonial territory devolves to the local authorities and prevails over any competing claim based on occupation. Thus, Uti possidetis is predicated on a rejection of self-determination and assumes that internal, administrative boundaries are functionally equivalent to international boundaries. Commentators criticize uti possidetis because administrative colonial borders were almost always vaguely drawn and did not correspond to the inhabitant populations. Consequently, these commentators argue, reliance on uti possidetis has led to many border disputes.​

• Elitism

Elitist claims to territory contend that a “particular minority has the right or duty to control certain territories.” Conquerors—who, historically, made such claims most frequently—often shaped them in terms of divine rights to rule certain territory. Such claims have become rarer over time because they “run counter to the democratic ideal.” Nevertheless, Elitist claims have a modern and public incarnation in arguments for territory based on superior technological ability—a particular group claims control over a territory by virtue of having the capacity to develop the land’s potential most fully. Such claims are consistent with a labor theory of property law, which grants property rights to the person (or entity) investing labor in the land, thereby making it productive. But for the capable person’s labor or technological ability, the territory’s resources and potential would not be tapped.​

• Ideology

Ideological justifications resemble claims of a “special mission” based in “unique identification with the land” and having inherent “exclusivist overtones.” Thus, Ideological justifications for territorial claims are more appropriately termed ideologically imperialist. Chief examples of this claim are the Crusades, the Ottoman Turks’ eastern advance, anti-colonialism, and social justice, among others. The anticolonial Ideological justification, which argues that colonial borders are per se inappropriate delimiters of territory for moral or legal reasons, is essentially the antithesis of a uti possidetis claim.​

Often, we have heard that the Arab Pales5inian has some sort of "inherent “exclusivist overtones." That is, they hold some special privileged over the Jewish Immigrants under the Allied Powers establishment of the JNH. And they hold that their inherent “exclusivity" overrides Jewish Self-determination or the administration established by treaty.

Similarly, the Arab Palestinian has exerted the postcolonial boundaries claim, as in the suggestion that the borders existed before such boundaries were fixed by the Allied Powers.

Most Respectfully,
R

Yeah, whatever. Palestine's international borders were defined by post war treaties. The Treaty of Lausanne ceded the land to the respective successor states. The Palestinians became the citizens of Palestine. The Palestinians, as the people of the place, have the universal list of inherent, inalienable rights. These rights have been reaffirmed by subsequent UN resolutions.

The British Mandate was imposed on them by military force. The immigration laws, and other laws and policies, were imposed on them by military force. The Zionist's importing foreign settlers by the boatload was imposed on them by military force.

It is interesting that you do not see any violations here. It must be that old government employee attitude.

Britain won the land from the Ottoman Empire. To the victor goes the spoils.

Britain never annexed or otherwise claimed that land. The land was ceded to the respective successor states.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Palestinians became the citizens of Palestine. The Palestinians, as the people of the place, have the universal list of inherent, inalienable rights.

There are two distinct groups within the borders of Palestine and as you (correctly) point out became Palestinian citizens -- Jews and Arabs. It is a civil war. Therefore there is no occupation. There are no other actors.

When the natives are attacked by foreign settlers, it is not a civil war.

 

[Shusha]

Britain never annexed or otherwise claimed that land. The land was ceded to the respective successor states.

No. It was not. It was not ceded. It was renounced by Turkey.

 

[Shusha]

When the natives are attacked by foreign settlers, it is not a civil war.

There are no other state actors involved in the conflict. The conflict is between two ethnic groups with claim over the same territory. That makes it a civil war. And civil wars are most often resolved by dividing the territory.

 

[P F Tinmore]

When the natives are attacked by foreign settlers, it is not a civil war.

There are no other state actors involved in the conflict. The conflict is between two ethnic groups with claim over the same territory. That makes it a civil war. And civil wars are most often resolved by dividing the territory.

Two ethnic groups.
The natives.
Foreign settlers.

 

[Shusha]

Two ethnic groups.
The natives.
Foreign settlers.

Two ethnic groups.

The natives who stayed in the land and the natives who returned to the land.
The natives who stayed in the land and who mixed with Arab invaders and colonizers.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Britain never annexed or otherwise claimed that land. The land was ceded to the respective successor states.

No. It was not. It was not ceded. It was renounced by Turkey.

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.

Treaty of Lausanne - World War I Document Archive

 

[Shusha]

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.

ARTICLE 16.

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.



Article 16 is the article which removes the territory from Turkish sovereignty. It is not ceded to any one, but is left for future settlements by the parties concerned. There are no "successor states" listed in this treaty. And certainly none that the territory is ceded directly to.

Article 30 is a safeguard to prevent Turkish subjects from statelessness. It protects the rights of individual citizens and not the political rights of any particular nation or State. It does not suggest sovereignty over territory in any way by any particular identifiable group. It is simply a way of ensuring the right to citizenship for individuals.

So no, your claim that Turkey ceded that particular territory to something or somebody specific is blatantly false.[/QUOTE]

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

Indeed, to the respective states the land was ceded to.

 

[Shusha]

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

Indeed, to the respective states the land was ceded to.

But that is not IN the document you quoted. The Treaty of Lausanne does not cede land to respective states. It only documents the renuciation of that land by Turkey.

So which document the result of further negotiation and the settlement by the parties concerned?

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

Indeed, to the respective states the land was ceded to.

But that is not IN the document you quoted. The Treaty of Lausanne does not cede land to respective states. It only documents the renuciation of that land by Turkey.

So which document the result of further negotiation and the settlement by the parties concerned?

Don't blame your reading comprehension problem on me.