Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Border

[Hollie]

RE: Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Border
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

OH, I don't think so!

Stated in many different ways, international law has one basic. The land belongs to the people and the people belong to the land. They cannot be separated. The people are the sovereigns within their defined territory.

(TEACH ME • SHOW ME)

I would like to see your reference.

Where doe it say this in the law?
Show me a legal and enforceable citation under international law that says this.

(JUST MY THOUGHT and OBSERVATION)

Not all countries are the same, and so, I believe you are citing a theoretical legal concept for one form of government.

BUT, In a Kingdom or Emerat, like you find in the MENA the Government is the sovereign entity. In most countries and in International Law, there is a difference between "sovereignty" over territory and "ownership" over territory.

Similarly, under international law, the status of sovereignty over territory and the sovereignty of a person is different.

Similarly, nationality and citizenship are criteria that are not universal from nation to nation. And the nation is the determining factor - not the people. If you a born in one nation, you are not automatically a citizen of other nations (except by stipulation of domestic law). International Law does not control national domestic law. While some states have bound themselves by treaty, convention or other instruments, there are extraction and egress clauses.

sovereignty: It has three primary senses:

(1) “supreme dominion, authority, or rule”;
(2) “the position, rank, or control of a supreme ruler, such as a monarch, or controlling power, such as a democratically formed government”; or
(3) “territory under the rule of a sovereign, or existing as an independent state.”
​

Most Respectfully,
R

Ethnic cleansing is illegal.

Acquiring territory by force is illegal.

Where is your confusion?

You should have advised the combined Arab-Islamist armies of that.

Are you confused?

 

[Mindful]

RE: Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Border
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

OH, I don't think so!

Stated in many different ways, international law has one basic. The land belongs to the people and the people belong to the land. They cannot be separated. The people are the sovereigns within their defined territory.

(TEACH ME • SHOW ME)

I would like to see your reference.

Where doe it say this in the law?
Show me a legal and enforceable citation under international law that says this.

(JUST MY THOUGHT and OBSERVATION)

Not all countries are the same, and so, I believe you are citing a theoretical legal concept for one form of government.

BUT, In a Kingdom or Emerat, like you find in the MENA the Government is the sovereign entity. In most countries and in International Law, there is a difference between "sovereignty" over territory and "ownership" over territory.

Similarly, under international law, the status of sovereignty over territory and the sovereignty of a person is different.

Similarly, nationality and citizenship are criteria that are not universal from nation to nation. And the nation is the determining factor - not the people. If you a born in one nation, you are not automatically a citizen of other nations (except by stipulation of domestic law). International Law does not control national domestic law. While some states have bound themselves by treaty, convention or other instruments, there are extraction and egress clauses.

sovereignty: It has three primary senses:

(1) “supreme dominion, authority, or rule”;
(2) “the position, rank, or control of a supreme ruler, such as a monarch, or controlling power, such as a democratically formed government”; or
(3) “territory under the rule of a sovereign, or existing as an independent state.”
​

Most Respectfully,
R

Ethnic cleansing is illegal.

Acquiring territory by force is illegal.

Where is your confusion?

Where's yours?

Concerning the ethnic cleansing of Jews from Arab countries.

And the Muslim conquests, for starters.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Border
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

OH, I don't think so!

Stated in many different ways, international law has one basic. The land belongs to the people and the people belong to the land. They cannot be separated. The people are the sovereigns within their defined territory.

(TEACH ME • SHOW ME)

I would like to see your reference.

Where doe it say this in the law?
Show me a legal and enforceable citation under international law that says this.

(JUST MY THOUGHT and OBSERVATION)

Not all countries are the same, and so, I believe you are citing a theoretical legal concept for one form of government.

BUT, In a Kingdom or Emerat, like you find in the MENA the Government is the sovereign entity. In most countries and in International Law, there is a difference between "sovereignty" over territory and "ownership" over territory.

Similarly, under international law, the status of sovereignty over territory and the sovereignty of a person is different.

Similarly, nationality and citizenship are criteria that are not universal from nation to nation. And the nation is the determining factor - not the people. If you a born in one nation, you are not automatically a citizen of other nations (except by stipulation of domestic law). International Law does not control national domestic law. While some states have bound themselves by treaty, convention or other instruments, there are extraction and egress clauses.

sovereignty: It has three primary senses:

(1) “supreme dominion, authority, or rule”;
(2) “the position, rank, or control of a supreme ruler, such as a monarch, or controlling power, such as a democratically formed government”; or
(3) “territory under the rule of a sovereign, or existing as an independent state.”
​

Most Respectfully,
R

Ethnic cleansing is illegal.

Acquiring territory by force is illegal.

Where is your confusion?

Where's yours?

Concerning the ethnic cleansing of Jews from Arab countries.

Unrelated issue. Has nothing to do with Palestine.

 

[Mindful]

RE: Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Border
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

OH, I don't think so!

Stated in many different ways, international law has one basic. The land belongs to the people and the people belong to the land. They cannot be separated. The people are the sovereigns within their defined territory.

(TEACH ME • SHOW ME)

I would like to see your reference.

Where doe it say this in the law?
Show me a legal and enforceable citation under international law that says this.

(JUST MY THOUGHT and OBSERVATION)

Not all countries are the same, and so, I believe you are citing a theoretical legal concept for one form of government.

BUT, In a Kingdom or Emerat, like you find in the MENA the Government is the sovereign entity. In most countries and in International Law, there is a difference between "sovereignty" over territory and "ownership" over territory.

Similarly, under international law, the status of sovereignty over territory and the sovereignty of a person is different.

Similarly, nationality and citizenship are criteria that are not universal from nation to nation. And the nation is the determining factor - not the people. If you a born in one nation, you are not automatically a citizen of other nations (except by stipulation of domestic law). International Law does not control national domestic law. While some states have bound themselves by treaty, convention or other instruments, there are extraction and egress clauses.

sovereignty: It has three primary senses:

(1) “supreme dominion, authority, or rule”;
(2) “the position, rank, or control of a supreme ruler, such as a monarch, or controlling power, such as a democratically formed government”; or
(3) “territory under the rule of a sovereign, or existing as an independent state.”
​

Most Respectfully,
R

Ethnic cleansing is illegal.

Acquiring territory by force is illegal.

Where is your confusion?

Where's yours?

Concerning the ethnic cleansing of Jews from Arab countries.

Unrelated issue. Has nothing to do with Palestine.

You're still confused then?

 

[Hollie]

RE: Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Border
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

OH, I don't think so!

Stated in many different ways, international law has one basic. The land belongs to the people and the people belong to the land. They cannot be separated. The people are the sovereigns within their defined territory.

(TEACH ME • SHOW ME)

I would like to see your reference.

Where doe it say this in the law?
Show me a legal and enforceable citation under international law that says this.

(JUST MY THOUGHT and OBSERVATION)

Not all countries are the same, and so, I believe you are citing a theoretical legal concept for one form of government.

BUT, In a Kingdom or Emerat, like you find in the MENA the Government is the sovereign entity. In most countries and in International Law, there is a difference between "sovereignty" over territory and "ownership" over territory.

Similarly, under international law, the status of sovereignty over territory and the sovereignty of a person is different.

Similarly, nationality and citizenship are criteria that are not universal from nation to nation. And the nation is the determining factor - not the people. If you a born in one nation, you are not automatically a citizen of other nations (except by stipulation of domestic law). International Law does not control national domestic law. While some states have bound themselves by treaty, convention or other instruments, there are extraction and egress clauses.

sovereignty: It has three primary senses:

(1) “supreme dominion, authority, or rule”;
(2) “the position, rank, or control of a supreme ruler, such as a monarch, or controlling power, such as a democratically formed government”; or
(3) “territory under the rule of a sovereign, or existing as an independent state.”
​

Most Respectfully,
R

Ethnic cleansing is illegal.

Acquiring territory by force is illegal.

Where is your confusion?

Where's yours?

Concerning the ethnic cleansing of Jews from Arab countries.

Unrelated issue. Has nothing to do with Palestine.

Gaza’istan is not a zip code in... wait for it.... the Country of Pal’istan which was created by the Treaty of Lausanne?

Are there any Jews in Gaza’istan?

 

[Shusha]

Sure the Mandate happened but it had no sovereignty over the land. It was merely a trustee.

We agree. The Mandate was a trusteeship, safe-guarding the self-determination of ALL the peoples there until they were able to "stand alone".

The land was ceded to Palestine

You've been corrected on this so many times, its impossible to count them, and ridiculous in the extreme that you continue to make this "error". Again, Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne reads:

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.

The territory was not ceded TO anyone. (It is entirely possible to cede territory to another sovereign. See Article 15 of the same Treaty where the wording is: Turkey hereby renounces in favour of Italy all rights and title...) The territory was ABANDONED by Turkey. The territory was to be settled by the parties involved. Now, we can argue who the "parties involved" are. I might even agree with you, contrary, I think, to Rocco's argument, that the parties involved were not only the trustees of the Mandate but also the people for whom the Mandate was holding the territory.

and the Palestinians became citizens of Palestine by treaty and international law.

Sure. In 1925, the British Mandate enacted a citizenship law (as they were required to do by treaty) making Turkish nationals habitually resident in the territory of Palestine, as well as immigrating Jews, Palestinian citizens. I have no real argument with this statement, in isolation. The problem is in how you use it.

... the Palestinians in Palestine have the right to self determination without external interference. The right to independence and sovereignty.

Yes. Both the JEWISH Palestinians and the ARAB Palestinians have the right to self-determination. The rights of Jewish Palestinians were very clearly and very specifically outlined in a number of documents. Those documents unequivocally state that the RIGHT of the Jewish Palestinians is based on their specific culture, long history, previous nationhood and ancestral claim to that territory. (Its the precursor to defining indigenous rights).

The right to territorial integrity.

Of course. Every sovereign nation has a right to territorial integrity. But here's the thing: in EVERY case that I can think of, where the right to self-determination of a people comes in conflict with a sovereign's territorial integrity, the right of self-determination ALWAYS wins out. The right of self-determination has precedence over territorial integrity.

None of these require a government or state. Nevertheless these rights cannot be violated.

The right to self-determination does not require a government or state. Actualization of self-determination definitely requires a government and state.




See the thing with you is that you get 90% of it right. You are one of the most knowledgeable people on this board when it comes to the actual documents, treaties and legal principles. And you reach the correct conclusions most of the time.

BUT for the 10% you get wrong, you are so colossally, stubbornly, unreasonably wrong that you lose all credibility and no one can take you seriously.

I'm pretty sure you can read. I'm pretty sure you actually have read Articles 15 and 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne and can understand the difference between renounces and renounces in favor of and yet in a few weeks I KNOW you are going to come back with, "Turkey ceded the territory to Palestine". You hold on to a few blatant misrepresentations of facts: a 10% which is not grounded in thoughtful assessment of the actual documents, treaties and legal principles, to the point of utter ridiculousness.

 

[Shusha]

Stated in many different ways, international law has one basic. The land belongs to the people and the people belong to the land. They cannot be separated. The people are the sovereigns within their defined territory.

So close, and yet so far.

Self-determination of peoples is indeed a principle of international law.

But territories are defined and re-defined all the time. There is nothing sacred or immutable about borders and boundary lines. That is another principle of international law.

 

[Shusha]

Acquiring territory by force is illegal.

Then Arabs should stop trying to take Israel by force.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Border
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law : free download. Ebooks library. On-line books store on Z-Library
Oh hell! I'm confused because I don't think you and I have the same definitions for these things.

Ethnic cleansing is illegal.

(COMMENT)

ethnic cleansing This term came to prominence in the 1990s during the conflicts in the
former Yugoslavia, though the phenomenon had been existing for some considerable time,
being condemned by the U.N. General Assembly in Res. 47/80 of 16 December 1992 as
a violation of international humanitarian law and of universally recognized human rights,
without any clear definition of what acts constituted ethnic cleansing or what specific
provisions of international humanitarian law and human rights were being violated by
these acts. See also Res. 47/121 of 7 April 1993 . While there are similarities between
ethnic cleansing and genocide, absent the intention to destroy an ethnic group and not
merely members of that group or to dissolve it, ethnic cleansing does not amount to genocide:
Genocide Convention Cases 2007 I.C.J. Rep. 1 at 70 and 71; Jorgic v. Germany ,
E.C.H.R. Application 74613/01 (2007) at para. 45; Krsti ć Case , I.C.T.Y. IT-98–33-T (2001) ,
para. 562. The definitions of crimes against humanity in art. 7 and of war crimes in art.
8 of the Statute of the International Criminal Court of 17 July 1998 ( 2187 U.N.T.S. 3 )
are such as to enable those committing acts typically associated with ethnic cleansing to be
brought before the Court. See also forcible transfers .
SOURCE: Oxford University Press • Print Publication Date: 2009 • Print ISBN-13: 9780195389777
NOTE: I have an electronic copy (.pdf) of this Third Edition. If you don't have one. Email me and I'll send it.
[email protected] OR you can get it from the Deep Web (Z-Library project) at Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law : free download. Ebooks library. On-line books store on Z-Library

I think it is difficult to interpret Articles 7 and 8 of the Rome Statues (ICC) or the ICC Elements of an Offense and apply it to the Arab Israeli Conflict (in either the 1948 War or the Six Day War) since the Rome Statute was established in 1998 and entered into force on 1 July 2002. So, I interested in what particular ethnic cleansing since 1998 / 2002 you are capturing?

I'm interested in knowing what you have defined it and what the "element of the offense is." If you don't have a definition and you don't have a codified set of elements of the offense, it is really difficult to enforce. Teach me how you understand this.

Acquiring territory by force is illegal.

(COMMENT)

The base authority for this is Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. It does not say "Acquiring territory by force." This is just media slang for the uneducated in describing Article 2(4):

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

First: The Arab Palestinians could not have had any "territorial integrity" or "political independence" before 1988 → and some would argue → 2012.

Second: And the "use of force" in the West Bank, Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip where against the Egyptians and the Jordanians. Not the Arab Palestinians. And so the Treaties with the Egyptians and the Jordanians resolved those issues. When did the Israelis "Acquire any Palestinian Territory by force?"

Where is your confusion?

(COMMENT)

I think that absent a sound and valid argument, these claims are frivolous and an attempt to create a conflict under the color of law by manipulation the definitions and laws themselves.

Help me out here... Teach me how valid each or your claims are. Use short and simple terms as I am an old man. In fact, today is my birthday.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

RoccoR

 

[rylah]

Sure the Mandate happened but it had no sovereignty over the land. It was merely a trustee.

We agree. The Mandate was a trusteeship, safe-guarding the self-determination of ALL the peoples there until they were able to "stand alone".

The land was ceded to Palestine

You've been corrected on this so many times, its impossible to count them, and ridiculous in the extreme that you continue to make this "error". Again, Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne reads:

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.

The territory was not ceded TO anyone. (It is entirely possible to cede territory to another sovereign. See Article 15 of the same Treaty where the wording is: Turkey hereby renounces in favour of Italy all rights and title...) The territory was ABANDONED by Turkey. The territory was to be settled by the parties involved. Now, we can argue who the "parties involved" are. I might even agree with you, contrary, I think, to Rocco's argument, that the parties involved were not only the trustees of the Mandate but also the people for whom the Mandate was holding the territory.

and the Palestinians became citizens of Palestine by treaty and international law.

Sure. In 1925, the British Mandate enacted a citizenship law (as they were required to do by treaty) making Turkish nationals habitually resident in the territory of Palestine, as well as immigrating Jews, Palestinian citizens. I have no real argument with this statement, in isolation. The problem is in how you use it.

... the Palestinians in Palestine have the right to self determination without external interference. The right to independence and sovereignty.

Yes. Both the JEWISH Palestinians and the ARAB Palestinians have the right to self-determination. The rights of Jewish Palestinians were very clearly and very specifically outlined in a number of documents. Those documents unequivocally state that the RIGHT of the Jewish Palestinians is based on their specific culture, long history, previous nationhood and ancestral claim to that territory. (Its the precursor to defining indigenous rights).

The right to territorial integrity.

Of course. Every sovereign nation has a right to territorial integrity. But here's the thing: in EVERY case that I can think of, where the right to self-determination of a people comes in conflict with a sovereign's territorial integrity, the right of self-determination ALWAYS wins out. The right of self-determination has precedence over territorial integrity.

None of these require a government or state. Nevertheless these rights cannot be violated.

The right to self-determination does not require a government or state. Actualization of self-determination definitely requires a government and state.




See the thing with you is that you get 90% of it right. You are one of the most knowledgeable people on this board when it comes to the actual documents, treaties and legal principles. And you reach the correct conclusions most of the time.

BUT for the 10% you get wrong, you are so colossally, stubbornly, unreasonably wrong that you lose all credibility and no one can take you seriously.

I'm pretty sure you can read. I'm pretty sure you actually have read Articles 15 and 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne and can understand the difference between renounces and renounces in favor of and yet in a few weeks I KNOW you are going to come back with, "Turkey ceded the territory to Palestine". You hold on to a few blatant misrepresentations of facts: a 10% which is not grounded in thoughtful assessment of the actual documents, treaties and legal principles, to the point of utter ridiculousness.

I think the bottom line here is a very simple and basic truth that is denied:

Israel is Palestine.
Potato potato.
The chicken and the egg.

 

[rylah]

Mazal Tov dear RoccoR

edit: oh I didn't see the "not", sure You know it was all meant with good intention.

 

[Shusha]

I think the bottom line here is a very simple and basic truth that is denied:

Israel is Palestine.

Bingo!

 

[P F Tinmore]

Sure the Mandate happened but it had no sovereignty over the land. It was merely a trustee.

We agree. The Mandate was a trusteeship, safe-guarding the self-determination of ALL the peoples there until they were able to "stand alone".

The land was ceded to Palestine

You've been corrected on this so many times, its impossible to count them, and ridiculous in the extreme that you continue to make this "error". Again, Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne reads:

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.

The territory was not ceded TO anyone. (It is entirely possible to cede territory to another sovereign. See Article 15 of the same Treaty where the wording is: Turkey hereby renounces in favour of Italy all rights and title...) The territory was ABANDONED by Turkey. The territory was to be settled by the parties involved. Now, we can argue who the "parties involved" are. I might even agree with you, contrary, I think, to Rocco's argument, that the parties involved were not only the trustees of the Mandate but also the people for whom the Mandate was holding the territory.

and the Palestinians became citizens of Palestine by treaty and international law.

Sure. In 1925, the British Mandate enacted a citizenship law (as they were required to do by treaty) making Turkish nationals habitually resident in the territory of Palestine, as well as immigrating Jews, Palestinian citizens. I have no real argument with this statement, in isolation. The problem is in how you use it.

... the Palestinians in Palestine have the right to self determination without external interference. The right to independence and sovereignty.

Yes. Both the JEWISH Palestinians and the ARAB Palestinians have the right to self-determination. The rights of Jewish Palestinians were very clearly and very specifically outlined in a number of documents. Those documents unequivocally state that the RIGHT of the Jewish Palestinians is based on their specific culture, long history, previous nationhood and ancestral claim to that territory. (Its the precursor to defining indigenous rights).

The right to territorial integrity.

Of course. Every sovereign nation has a right to territorial integrity. But here's the thing: in EVERY case that I can think of, where the right to self-determination of a people comes in conflict with a sovereign's territorial integrity, the right of self-determination ALWAYS wins out. The right of self-determination has precedence over territorial integrity.

None of these require a government or state. Nevertheless these rights cannot be violated.

The right to self-determination does not require a government or state. Actualization of self-determination definitely requires a government and state.




See the thing with you is that you get 90% of it right. You are one of the most knowledgeable people on this board when it comes to the actual documents, treaties and legal principles. And you reach the correct conclusions most of the time.

BUT for the 10% you get wrong, you are so colossally, stubbornly, unreasonably wrong that you lose all credibility and no one can take you seriously.

I'm pretty sure you can read. I'm pretty sure you actually have read Articles 15 and 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne and can understand the difference between renounces and renounces in favor of and yet in a few weeks I KNOW you are going to come back with, "Turkey ceded the territory to Palestine". You hold on to a few blatant misrepresentations of facts: a 10% which is not grounded in thoughtful assessment of the actual documents, treaties and legal principles, to the point of utter ridiculousness.

I might even agree with you, contrary, I think, to Rocco's argument, that the parties involved were not only the trustees of the Mandate but also the people for whom the Mandate was holding the territory.

Indeed, trustees hold territory in trust for somebody. The Mandates held the land in trust for the inhabitants i.e. the Palestinians. No foreigners were mentioned.

 

[Shusha]

Sure the Mandate happened but it had no sovereignty over the land. It was merely a trustee.

We agree. The Mandate was a trusteeship, safe-guarding the self-determination of ALL the peoples there until they were able to "stand alone".

The land was ceded to Palestine

You've been corrected on this so many times, its impossible to count them, and ridiculous in the extreme that you continue to make this "error". Again, Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne reads:

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.

The territory was not ceded TO anyone. (It is entirely possible to cede territory to another sovereign. See Article 15 of the same Treaty where the wording is: Turkey hereby renounces in favour of Italy all rights and title...) The territory was ABANDONED by Turkey. The territory was to be settled by the parties involved. Now, we can argue who the "parties involved" are. I might even agree with you, contrary, I think, to Rocco's argument, that the parties involved were not only the trustees of the Mandate but also the people for whom the Mandate was holding the territory.

and the Palestinians became citizens of Palestine by treaty and international law.

Sure. In 1925, the British Mandate enacted a citizenship law (as they were required to do by treaty) making Turkish nationals habitually resident in the territory of Palestine, as well as immigrating Jews, Palestinian citizens. I have no real argument with this statement, in isolation. The problem is in how you use it.

... the Palestinians in Palestine have the right to self determination without external interference. The right to independence and sovereignty.

Yes. Both the JEWISH Palestinians and the ARAB Palestinians have the right to self-determination. The rights of Jewish Palestinians were very clearly and very specifically outlined in a number of documents. Those documents unequivocally state that the RIGHT of the Jewish Palestinians is based on their specific culture, long history, previous nationhood and ancestral claim to that territory. (Its the precursor to defining indigenous rights).

The right to territorial integrity.

Of course. Every sovereign nation has a right to territorial integrity. But here's the thing: in EVERY case that I can think of, where the right to self-determination of a people comes in conflict with a sovereign's territorial integrity, the right of self-determination ALWAYS wins out. The right of self-determination has precedence over territorial integrity.

None of these require a government or state. Nevertheless these rights cannot be violated.

The right to self-determination does not require a government or state. Actualization of self-determination definitely requires a government and state.




See the thing with you is that you get 90% of it right. You are one of the most knowledgeable people on this board when it comes to the actual documents, treaties and legal principles. And you reach the correct conclusions most of the time.

BUT for the 10% you get wrong, you are so colossally, stubbornly, unreasonably wrong that you lose all credibility and no one can take you seriously.

I'm pretty sure you can read. I'm pretty sure you actually have read Articles 15 and 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne and can understand the difference between renounces and renounces in favor of and yet in a few weeks I KNOW you are going to come back with, "Turkey ceded the territory to Palestine". You hold on to a few blatant misrepresentations of facts: a 10% which is not grounded in thoughtful assessment of the actual documents, treaties and legal principles, to the point of utter ridiculousness.

I might even agree with you, contrary, I think, to Rocco's argument, that the parties involved were not only the trustees of the Mandate but also the people for whom the Mandate was holding the territory.

Indeed, trustees hold territory in trust for somebody. The Mandates held the land in trust for the inhabitants i.e. the Palestinians. No foreigners were mentioned.

The Jewish people are not foreigners in their own land. The Jewish people were not only INCLUDED in the designation of “Palestinians”, they were specifically recognized.

 

[P F Tinmore]

When did the Israelis "Acquire any Palestinian Territory by force?"

1948

 

[Hollie]

Sure the Mandate happened but it had no sovereignty over the land. It was merely a trustee.

We agree. The Mandate was a trusteeship, safe-guarding the self-determination of ALL the peoples there until they were able to "stand alone".

The land was ceded to Palestine

You've been corrected on this so many times, its impossible to count them, and ridiculous in the extreme that you continue to make this "error". Again, Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne reads:

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.

The territory was not ceded TO anyone. (It is entirely possible to cede territory to another sovereign. See Article 15 of the same Treaty where the wording is: Turkey hereby renounces in favour of Italy all rights and title...) The territory was ABANDONED by Turkey. The territory was to be settled by the parties involved. Now, we can argue who the "parties involved" are. I might even agree with you, contrary, I think, to Rocco's argument, that the parties involved were not only the trustees of the Mandate but also the people for whom the Mandate was holding the territory.

and the Palestinians became citizens of Palestine by treaty and international law.

Sure. In 1925, the British Mandate enacted a citizenship law (as they were required to do by treaty) making Turkish nationals habitually resident in the territory of Palestine, as well as immigrating Jews, Palestinian citizens. I have no real argument with this statement, in isolation. The problem is in how you use it.

... the Palestinians in Palestine have the right to self determination without external interference. The right to independence and sovereignty.

Yes. Both the JEWISH Palestinians and the ARAB Palestinians have the right to self-determination. The rights of Jewish Palestinians were very clearly and very specifically outlined in a number of documents. Those documents unequivocally state that the RIGHT of the Jewish Palestinians is based on their specific culture, long history, previous nationhood and ancestral claim to that territory. (Its the precursor to defining indigenous rights).

The right to territorial integrity.

Of course. Every sovereign nation has a right to territorial integrity. But here's the thing: in EVERY case that I can think of, where the right to self-determination of a people comes in conflict with a sovereign's territorial integrity, the right of self-determination ALWAYS wins out. The right of self-determination has precedence over territorial integrity.

None of these require a government or state. Nevertheless these rights cannot be violated.

The right to self-determination does not require a government or state. Actualization of self-determination definitely requires a government and state.




See the thing with you is that you get 90% of it right. You are one of the most knowledgeable people on this board when it comes to the actual documents, treaties and legal principles. And you reach the correct conclusions most of the time.

BUT for the 10% you get wrong, you are so colossally, stubbornly, unreasonably wrong that you lose all credibility and no one can take you seriously.

I'm pretty sure you can read. I'm pretty sure you actually have read Articles 15 and 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne and can understand the difference between renounces and renounces in favor of and yet in a few weeks I KNOW you are going to come back with, "Turkey ceded the territory to Palestine". You hold on to a few blatant misrepresentations of facts: a 10% which is not grounded in thoughtful assessment of the actual documents, treaties and legal principles, to the point of utter ridiculousness.

I might even agree with you, contrary, I think, to Rocco's argument, that the parties involved were not only the trustees of the Mandate but also the people for whom the Mandate was holding the territory.

Indeed, trustees hold territory in trust for somebody. The Mandates held the land in trust for the inhabitants i.e. the Palestinians. No foreigners were mentioned.

The Jewish people are not foreigners in their own land. The Jewish people were not only INCLUDED in the designation of “Palestinians”, they were specifically recognized.

When exactly did Egyptians, Syrians, Lebanese, etc. magically become “Pal’istanians”?

 

[Hollie]

When did the Israelis "Acquire any Palestinian Territory by force?"

1948

1948 was the invasion by the combined Arab armies.

 

[Shusha]

When did the Israelis "Acquire any Palestinian Territory by force?"

1948

1948 was the invasion by the combined Arab armies.

Hey wait a minute. I thought it wasn’t legal to acquire land by force.

 

[Shusha]

Sure the Mandate happened but it had no sovereignty over the land. It was merely a trustee.

We agree. The Mandate was a trusteeship, safe-guarding the self-determination of ALL the peoples there until they were able to "stand alone".

The land was ceded to Palestine

You've been corrected on this so many times, its impossible to count them, and ridiculous in the extreme that you continue to make this "error". Again, Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne reads:

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.

The territory was not ceded TO anyone. (It is entirely possible to cede territory to another sovereign. See Article 15 of the same Treaty where the wording is: Turkey hereby renounces in favour of Italy all rights and title...) The territory was ABANDONED by Turkey. The territory was to be settled by the parties involved. Now, we can argue who the "parties involved" are. I might even agree with you, contrary, I think, to Rocco's argument, that the parties involved were not only the trustees of the Mandate but also the people for whom the Mandate was holding the territory.

and the Palestinians became citizens of Palestine by treaty and international law.

Sure. In 1925, the British Mandate enacted a citizenship law (as they were required to do by treaty) making Turkish nationals habitually resident in the territory of Palestine, as well as immigrating Jews, Palestinian citizens. I have no real argument with this statement, in isolation. The problem is in how you use it.

... the Palestinians in Palestine have the right to self determination without external interference. The right to independence and sovereignty.

Yes. Both the JEWISH Palestinians and the ARAB Palestinians have the right to self-determination. The rights of Jewish Palestinians were very clearly and very specifically outlined in a number of documents. Those documents unequivocally state that the RIGHT of the Jewish Palestinians is based on their specific culture, long history, previous nationhood and ancestral claim to that territory. (Its the precursor to defining indigenous rights).

The right to territorial integrity.

Of course. Every sovereign nation has a right to territorial integrity. But here's the thing: in EVERY case that I can think of, where the right to self-determination of a people comes in conflict with a sovereign's territorial integrity, the right of self-determination ALWAYS wins out. The right of self-determination has precedence over territorial integrity.

None of these require a government or state. Nevertheless these rights cannot be violated.

The right to self-determination does not require a government or state. Actualization of self-determination definitely requires a government and state.




See the thing with you is that you get 90% of it right. You are one of the most knowledgeable people on this board when it comes to the actual documents, treaties and legal principles. And you reach the correct conclusions most of the time.

BUT for the 10% you get wrong, you are so colossally, stubbornly, unreasonably wrong that you lose all credibility and no one can take you seriously.

I'm pretty sure you can read. I'm pretty sure you actually have read Articles 15 and 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne and can understand the difference between renounces and renounces in favor of and yet in a few weeks I KNOW you are going to come back with, "Turkey ceded the territory to Palestine". You hold on to a few blatant misrepresentations of facts: a 10% which is not grounded in thoughtful assessment of the actual documents, treaties and legal principles, to the point of utter ridiculousness.

I might even agree with you, contrary, I think, to Rocco's argument, that the parties involved were not only the trustees of the Mandate but also the people for whom the Mandate was holding the territory.

Indeed, trustees hold territory in trust for somebody. The Mandates held the land in trust for the inhabitants i.e. the Palestinians. No foreigners were mentioned.

The Jewish people are not foreigners in their own land. The Jewish people were not only INCLUDED in the designation of “Palestinians”, they were specifically recognized.

When exactly did Egyptians, Syrians, Lebanese, etc. magically become “Pal’istanians”?

As meant by a distinct people with rights to self-determination? Developed in the 1970s and 1980s. They certainly had it by 1988 when they declared independence. Even if they had no means to bring that about. As a people, they existed definitively by then.