"Settlements" Are Not Illegal

[Phoenall]

Tehon, et al,

This is a sticky two-part question.

Israel's recognition of Palestine as a state under International Law is a statement of its intent by Israel. Recognition constitutes a unilateral decision by Israel of it's intent to conduct diplomatic exchanges on the basis that a body of leaders represent the constituents of a particular territory.

• It is entirely at the discretion of Israel to decide to recognize Palestine as a state.
• Recognition is unconditional and irrevocable once given. Israel would be stipulating that the State pf Palestine is equal, enjoy the same rights as other States, and have equal capacity in their exercise.
​

Israel's recognition of Palestine as a state may be "express" (explicitly stated) or "tacit" (implied deeds or indicated actions). The Oslo II Accord (Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip) may be considered such a deed as to be tacit approval.

Does Israel recognize Palestine as a State and how does that bear on the duties of Palestinians in regards to the law?

(COMMENT)

The citizenry of the State of Palestine must formulate a government that is effective and independent both externally and internally; as an expression of state sovereignty.

If Palestine is recognized before all the preconditions for recognition are met (premature recognition), this could be considered contrary to International Law and Legally Ineffective. If Israel were to prematurely recognizes Palestine [as in the "occupied Palestinian territories" (oPt)] as in Paragraph 1, A/RES/67/19] could be interpreted as being in breach of the prohibition of interference in the internal affairs of a state [Article2(4) 2 of the Charter of the United Nations]. See The recognition of states and governments under international law

A distinction is also drawn between de jure and de facto recognition.

• de jure Recognition: If a state is accorded de jure recognition, that means all the preconditions under international law for final and complete recognition have been fulfilled.

• de facto Recognition: this type of recognition has a comparatively less binding effect, because the legal relationship – though effectively in existence – is only provisional. Provisional de facto recognition for political reasons can of course be converted to de jure recognition once all the required legal preconditions have been fulfilled.
​

(ANSWER)

In my opinion (for what it is worth) Israel has, without a formal statement, acted in a manner with the Palestinian Authority that suggests it has granted tacit provisional recognition.

Most Respectfully,
R

Palestine has been a state since the Treaty of Lausanne. Even the US recognized the state of Palestine in 1932 when it had a trade agreement with Palestine that was separate from the one it had with Britain. And later a US court case about Palestinian citizenship ruled Palestine to be a state.

And still you refuse to provide the evidence of this being so, at no time is the state of palestine mentioned in the treaty of Lausanne so that is your first LIE.
The USA has not recognised palestine as a state until 1988 when it declared independence. The US court does not dictate official US policy and so cant declare a state where one has never existed. This is your second LIE

All you have is the word of an islamonazi propagandist and LIAR who has been proven to alter treaties, laws and official letters to say what he believes.

 

[Phoenall]

He says that the territories under the Mandate were intended to become independent nation-states.

The Mandate system was merely a fig leaf for Britain and France to use so they could acquire and colonise the territory of the Ottoman Empire after they publicly declared they were not fighting the war (WW1) in order to expand their respective empires.

So where are these alleged colonies to be found, I cant find any mention in any history books or on any maps. Care to produce the evidence of your fanciful neo marxist claims ?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I would be very interested in seeing anything prior to 1988, that refers to the "State" of Palestine. Most often cited to this alleged claim "state(hood)" as opposed to "Government of" is found Series "A", Page #7 - 1925 Judgement #5, Permanent Court of International Justice (His Britannic Majesty's Government, represented by R. V. Vernon Esq., C.B.. of the Colonial Office 'vs' The Government of the Greek Republic, represented by H.E. M. Kapsambelis, Greek Minister at The Hague.

The Government of the Greek Republic, by an application filed with the Registry of the Court on May 13th, 1924, in accordance with Article 40 of the Statute and Article 35 of the Rules of Court, has submitted to the Permanent Court of International Justice a suit arising out of the alleged refusal on the part of the
Government of Palestine and consequently also on the part of His Britannic Majesty's Government, in its capacity as Mandatory Power for Palestine, since the year 1921, to recognize to their full extent the rights acquired by M. Mavrommatis, a Greek subject, under contracts and agreements concluded by him with the Ottoman authorities, in regard to concessions for certain public works to certain constructed in Palestine.
​

I would very much be interested in seeing within the Treaty of Lausanne ANY reference to "State of Palestine" (or even just the word "Palestine." Relative to the treaty, the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic makes the unambiguous statement inequitably that:

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.
​

The US Supreme Court case Zivotofsky v. Kerry:

Docket # 13-628 Case: 725 F. 3d 197,
Date of Decision: 8 June 2015
Petitioner: Juvenile
Respondent: Department or Secretary of State (DoS)
​

This case had very little to do with the case of citizenship, but the authority of the DoS to designate the status of the place of birth. It was a both the validity and authority of the Executive Branch’s longstanding position that the United States does not recognize any country as having sovereignty over Jerusalem. It was not a citizenship case; but a US Federal Recognition Case.

Palestine has been a state since the Treaty of Lausanne. Even the US recognized the state of Palestine in 1932 when it had a trade agreement with Palestine that was separate from the one it had with Britain. And later a US court case about Palestinian citizenship ruled Palestine to be a state.

(COMMENT)

What has evolved into the commercially designated "Arab Free Trade Area" (AFTA), which includes all 22 members of the Arab League, has only a half-century linage. The chaotic geo-political behavior radically change to such a degree that by 1950 (mid-20th Century) the geo-political nature of the overall regional territory (including Palestine and all the adjacent Arab States) looked nothing like the geo-political nature of the 1900 Region --- or --- the contemporary geo-political characteristics of the 21st Century.

Relative to trade, commercial ventures and investments, industrial export production, and technological developments, the region we call Palestine today was (in 50 year increments along a timeline) looked very different from the regional area in 1850, 1900, 1950 and even today. And when looking a the maturity of the commercial development of the Region, the influence of an 1850 Ottoman area, to the a 1900 embryonic Republic, 1950s post Mandate Period and the 21st Century arena of conflict. The al-Bekka Valley and half-the border with Israel dominated by Hezbollah, Syria in complete chaos in the geo-political sense, Jordan stable and Egypt becoming stable after the Arab Spring. But what we call the State of Palestine is a self-proclaimed (self-determination) was only made possible in 1988.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[racialreality9]

The whole country of Israel is illegal!

Once you are finished raping America, Jews, you know Israel won't stand. The Arabs are going to wipe you out.

 

[Phoenall]

The whole country of Israel is illegal!

Once you are finished raping America, Jews, you know Israel won't stand. The Arabs are going to wipe you out.

It is more legal than most of the islamonazi nations that surround it. Even the UN has agreed international laws to support the validity of Israel.

We keep hearing this same claim from you islamonazi's ever since Israel was re-created, you have a 100,000,000 to 1 advantage in bodies by itself and still you cant beat Israel. You have invaded 6 times and been destroyed 6 times, you try to degrade the Israeli's moral with terrorist attacks and the Israeli's reply by demoralising your terrorists even before they have fired a shot. The world is getting tired of islamonazi threats and will one day turn and wipe out islam, then we might see peace for once

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I would be very interested in seeing anything prior to 1988, that refers to the "State" of Palestine. Most often cited to this alleged claim "state(hood)" as opposed to "Government of" is found Series "A", Page #7 - 1925 Judgement #5, Permanent Court of International Justice (His Britannic Majesty's Government, represented by R. V. Vernon Esq., C.B.. of the Colonial Office 'vs' The Government of the Greek Republic, represented by H.E. M. Kapsambelis, Greek Minister at The Hague.

The Government of the Greek Republic, by an application filed with the Registry of the Court on May 13th, 1924, in accordance with Article 40 of the Statute and Article 35 of the Rules of Court, has submitted to the Permanent Court of International Justice a suit arising out of the alleged refusal on the part of the
Government of Palestine and consequently also on the part of His Britannic Majesty's Government, in its capacity as Mandatory Power for Palestine, since the year 1921, to recognize to their full extent the rights acquired by M. Mavrommatis, a Greek subject, under contracts and agreements concluded by him with the Ottoman authorities, in regard to concessions for certain public works to certain constructed in Palestine.
​

I would very much be interested in seeing within the Treaty of Lausanne ANY reference to "State of Palestine" (or even just the word "Palestine." Relative to the treaty, the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic makes the unambiguous statement inequitably that:

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.
​

The US Supreme Court case Zivotofsky v. Kerry:

Docket # 13-628 Case: 725 F. 3d 197,
Date of Decision: 8 June 2015
Petitioner: Juvenile
Respondent: Department or Secretary of State (DoS)​

This case had very little to do with the case of citizenship, but the authority of the DoS to designate the status of the place of birth. It was a both the validity and authority of the Executive Branch’s longstanding position that the United States does not recognize any country as having sovereignty over Jerusalem. It was not a citizenship case; but a US Federal Recognition Case.

Palestine has been a state since the Treaty of Lausanne. Even the US recognized the state of Palestine in 1932 when it had a trade agreement with Palestine that was separate from the one it had with Britain. And later a US court case about Palestinian citizenship ruled Palestine to be a state.

(COMMENT)

What has evolved into the commercially designated "Arab Free Trade Area" (AFTA), which includes all 22 members of the Arab League, has only a half-century linage. The chaotic geo-political behavior radically change to such a degree that by 1950 (mid-20th Century) the geo-political nature of the overall regional territory (including Palestine and all the adjacent Arab States) looked nothing like the geo-political nature of the 1900 Region --- or --- the contemporary geo-political characteristics of the 21st Century.

Relative to trade, commercial ventures and investments, industrial export production, and technological developments, the region we call Palestine today was (in 50 year increments along a timeline) looked very different from the regional area in 1850, 1900, 1950 and even today. And when looking a the maturity of the commercial development of the Region, the influence of an 1850 Ottoman area, to the a 1900 embryonic Republic, 1950s post Mandate Period and the 21st Century arena of conflict. The al-Bekka Valley and half-the border with Israel dominated by Hezbollah, Syria in complete chaos in the geo-political sense, Jordan stable and Egypt becoming stable after the Arab Spring. But what we call the State of Palestine is a self-proclaimed (self-determination) was only made possible in 1988.

Most Respectfully,
R

I would very much be interested in seeing within the Treaty of Lausanne ANY reference to "State of Palestine" (or even just the word "Palestine."​

I hear Israeli propagandists say that all of the time. What they fail to mention is that Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Transjordan were not mentioned either. They imply that Palestine is an anomaly when it is the same as all of the other new states.

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I would be very interested in seeing anything prior to 1988, that refers to the "State" of Palestine. Most often cited to this alleged claim "state(hood)" as opposed to "Government of" is found Series "A", Page #7 - 1925 Judgement #5, Permanent Court of International Justice (His Britannic Majesty's Government, represented by R. V. Vernon Esq., C.B.. of the Colonial Office 'vs' The Government of the Greek Republic, represented by H.E. M. Kapsambelis, Greek Minister at The Hague.

The Government of the Greek Republic, by an application filed with the Registry of the Court on May 13th, 1924, in accordance with Article 40 of the Statute and Article 35 of the Rules of Court, has submitted to the Permanent Court of International Justice a suit arising out of the alleged refusal on the part of the
Government of Palestine and consequently also on the part of His Britannic Majesty's Government, in its capacity as Mandatory Power for Palestine, since the year 1921, to recognize to their full extent the rights acquired by M. Mavrommatis, a Greek subject, under contracts and agreements concluded by him with the Ottoman authorities, in regard to concessions for certain public works to certain constructed in Palestine.
​

I would very much be interested in seeing within the Treaty of Lausanne ANY reference to "State of Palestine" (or even just the word "Palestine." Relative to the treaty, the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic makes the unambiguous statement inequitably that:

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.
​

The US Supreme Court case Zivotofsky v. Kerry:

Docket # 13-628 Case: 725 F. 3d 197,
Date of Decision: 8 June 2015
Petitioner: Juvenile
Respondent: Department or Secretary of State (DoS)​

This case had very little to do with the case of citizenship, but the authority of the DoS to designate the status of the place of birth. It was a both the validity and authority of the Executive Branch’s longstanding position that the United States does not recognize any country as having sovereignty over Jerusalem. It was not a citizenship case; but a US Federal Recognition Case.

Palestine has been a state since the Treaty of Lausanne. Even the US recognized the state of Palestine in 1932 when it had a trade agreement with Palestine that was separate from the one it had with Britain. And later a US court case about Palestinian citizenship ruled Palestine to be a state.

(COMMENT)

What has evolved into the commercially designated "Arab Free Trade Area" (AFTA), which includes all 22 members of the Arab League, has only a half-century linage. The chaotic geo-political behavior radically change to such a degree that by 1950 (mid-20th Century) the geo-political nature of the overall regional territory (including Palestine and all the adjacent Arab States) looked nothing like the geo-political nature of the 1900 Region --- or --- the contemporary geo-political characteristics of the 21st Century.

Relative to trade, commercial ventures and investments, industrial export production, and technological developments, the region we call Palestine today was (in 50 year increments along a timeline) looked very different from the regional area in 1850, 1900, 1950 and even today. And when looking a the maturity of the commercial development of the Region, the influence of an 1850 Ottoman area, to the a 1900 embryonic Republic, 1950s post Mandate Period and the 21st Century arena of conflict. The al-Bekka Valley and half-the border with Israel dominated by Hezbollah, Syria in complete chaos in the geo-political sense, Jordan stable and Egypt becoming stable after the Arab Spring. But what we call the State of Palestine is a self-proclaimed (self-determination) was only made possible in 1988.

Most Respectfully,
R

I would very much be interested in seeing within the Treaty of Lausanne ANY reference to "State of Palestine" (or even just the word "Palestine."​

I hear Israeli propagandists say that all of the time. What they fail to mention is that Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Transjordan were not mentioned either. They imply that Palestine is an anomaly when it is the same as all of the other new states.

So, we can agree that your "State of Pal'istan" claim is a fraud.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I would be very interested in seeing anything prior to 1988, that refers to the "State" of Palestine. Most often cited to this alleged claim "state(hood)" as opposed to "Government of" is found Series "A", Page #7 - 1925 Judgement #5, Permanent Court of International Justice (His Britannic Majesty's Government, represented by R. V. Vernon Esq., C.B.. of the Colonial Office 'vs' The Government of the Greek Republic, represented by H.E. M. Kapsambelis, Greek Minister at The Hague.

The Government of the Greek Republic, by an application filed with the Registry of the Court on May 13th, 1924, in accordance with Article 40 of the Statute and Article 35 of the Rules of Court, has submitted to the Permanent Court of International Justice a suit arising out of the alleged refusal on the part of the
Government of Palestine and consequently also on the part of His Britannic Majesty's Government, in its capacity as Mandatory Power for Palestine, since the year 1921, to recognize to their full extent the rights acquired by M. Mavrommatis, a Greek subject, under contracts and agreements concluded by him with the Ottoman authorities, in regard to concessions for certain public works to certain constructed in Palestine.
​

I would very much be interested in seeing within the Treaty of Lausanne ANY reference to "State of Palestine" (or even just the word "Palestine." Relative to the treaty, the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic makes the unambiguous statement inequitably that:

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.
​

The US Supreme Court case Zivotofsky v. Kerry:

Docket # 13-628 Case: 725 F. 3d 197,
Date of Decision: 8 June 2015
Petitioner: Juvenile
Respondent: Department or Secretary of State (DoS)​

This case had very little to do with the case of citizenship, but the authority of the DoS to designate the status of the place of birth. It was a both the validity and authority of the Executive Branch’s longstanding position that the United States does not recognize any country as having sovereignty over Jerusalem. It was not a citizenship case; but a US Federal Recognition Case.

Palestine has been a state since the Treaty of Lausanne. Even the US recognized the state of Palestine in 1932 when it had a trade agreement with Palestine that was separate from the one it had with Britain. And later a US court case about Palestinian citizenship ruled Palestine to be a state.

(COMMENT)

What has evolved into the commercially designated "Arab Free Trade Area" (AFTA), which includes all 22 members of the Arab League, has only a half-century linage. The chaotic geo-political behavior radically change to such a degree that by 1950 (mid-20th Century) the geo-political nature of the overall regional territory (including Palestine and all the adjacent Arab States) looked nothing like the geo-political nature of the 1900 Region --- or --- the contemporary geo-political characteristics of the 21st Century.

Relative to trade, commercial ventures and investments, industrial export production, and technological developments, the region we call Palestine today was (in 50 year increments along a timeline) looked very different from the regional area in 1850, 1900, 1950 and even today. And when looking a the maturity of the commercial development of the Region, the influence of an 1850 Ottoman area, to the a 1900 embryonic Republic, 1950s post Mandate Period and the 21st Century arena of conflict. The al-Bekka Valley and half-the border with Israel dominated by Hezbollah, Syria in complete chaos in the geo-political sense, Jordan stable and Egypt becoming stable after the Arab Spring. But what we call the State of Palestine is a self-proclaimed (self-determination) was only made possible in 1988.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Government of the Greek Republic, by an application filed with the Registry of the Court on May 13th, 1924, in accordance with Article 40 of the Statute and Article 35 of the Rules of Court, has submitted to the Permanent Court of International Justice a suit arising out of the alleged refusal on the part of the
Government of Palestine and consequently also on the part of His Britannic Majesty's Government, in its capacity as Mandatory Power for Palestine, since the year 1921, to recognize to their full extent the rights acquired by M. Mavrommatis, a Greek subject, under contracts and agreements concluded by him with the Ottoman authorities, in regard to concessions for certain public works to certain constructed in Palestine.​

I don't know why you brought this up.

The court found that Palestine was a successor state and was responsible to honor that contract. Britain, with its Mandate, was the trustee for Palestine and was ultimately responsible.

 

[Hollie]

The whole country of Israel is illegal!

Once you are finished raping America, Jews, you know Israel won't stand. The Arabs are going to wipe you out.

The lad needs a reminder to take his meds.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I would be very interested in seeing anything prior to 1988, that refers to the "State" of Palestine. Most often cited to this alleged claim "state(hood)" as opposed to "Government of" is found Series "A", Page #7 - 1925 Judgement #5, Permanent Court of International Justice (His Britannic Majesty's Government, represented by R. V. Vernon Esq., C.B.. of the Colonial Office 'vs' The Government of the Greek Republic, represented by H.E. M. Kapsambelis, Greek Minister at The Hague.

The Government of the Greek Republic, by an application filed with the Registry of the Court on May 13th, 1924, in accordance with Article 40 of the Statute and Article 35 of the Rules of Court, has submitted to the Permanent Court of International Justice a suit arising out of the alleged refusal on the part of the
Government of Palestine and consequently also on the part of His Britannic Majesty's Government, in its capacity as Mandatory Power for Palestine, since the year 1921, to recognize to their full extent the rights acquired by M. Mavrommatis, a Greek subject, under contracts and agreements concluded by him with the Ottoman authorities, in regard to concessions for certain public works to certain constructed in Palestine.
​

I would very much be interested in seeing within the Treaty of Lausanne ANY reference to "State of Palestine" (or even just the word "Palestine." Relative to the treaty, the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic makes the unambiguous statement inequitably that:

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.
​

The US Supreme Court case Zivotofsky v. Kerry:

Docket # 13-628 Case: 725 F. 3d 197,
Date of Decision: 8 June 2015
Petitioner: Juvenile
Respondent: Department or Secretary of State (DoS)​

This case had very little to do with the case of citizenship, but the authority of the DoS to designate the status of the place of birth. It was a both the validity and authority of the Executive Branch’s longstanding position that the United States does not recognize any country as having sovereignty over Jerusalem. It was not a citizenship case; but a US Federal Recognition Case.

Palestine has been a state since the Treaty of Lausanne. Even the US recognized the state of Palestine in 1932 when it had a trade agreement with Palestine that was separate from the one it had with Britain. And later a US court case about Palestinian citizenship ruled Palestine to be a state.

(COMMENT)

What has evolved into the commercially designated "Arab Free Trade Area" (AFTA), which includes all 22 members of the Arab League, has only a half-century linage. The chaotic geo-political behavior radically change to such a degree that by 1950 (mid-20th Century) the geo-political nature of the overall regional territory (including Palestine and all the adjacent Arab States) looked nothing like the geo-political nature of the 1900 Region --- or --- the contemporary geo-political characteristics of the 21st Century.

Relative to trade, commercial ventures and investments, industrial export production, and technological developments, the region we call Palestine today was (in 50 year increments along a timeline) looked very different from the regional area in 1850, 1900, 1950 and even today. And when looking a the maturity of the commercial development of the Region, the influence of an 1850 Ottoman area, to the a 1900 embryonic Republic, 1950s post Mandate Period and the 21st Century arena of conflict. The al-Bekka Valley and half-the border with Israel dominated by Hezbollah, Syria in complete chaos in the geo-political sense, Jordan stable and Egypt becoming stable after the Arab Spring. But what we call the State of Palestine is a self-proclaimed (self-determination) was only made possible in 1988.

Most Respectfully,
R

I would very much be interested in seeing within the Treaty of Lausanne ANY reference to "State of Palestine" (or even just the word "Palestine."​

I hear Israeli propagandists say that all of the time. What they fail to mention is that Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Transjordan were not mentioned either. They imply that Palestine is an anomaly when it is the same as all of the other new states.

They were mentioned in other treaties and mandates, but an islamonazi nation of palestine was not. The first thing the LoN did was to put in writting the terms of the Balfour declaration making it the basis of an international law. There is nothing of that magnitude for the nation of palestine. So where is this treaty that you say exists that no one else has seen ?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I would be very interested in seeing anything prior to 1988, that refers to the "State" of Palestine. Most often cited to this alleged claim "state(hood)" as opposed to "Government of" is found Series "A", Page #7 - 1925 Judgement #5, Permanent Court of International Justice (His Britannic Majesty's Government, represented by R. V. Vernon Esq., C.B.. of the Colonial Office 'vs' The Government of the Greek Republic, represented by H.E. M. Kapsambelis, Greek Minister at The Hague.

The Government of the Greek Republic, by an application filed with the Registry of the Court on May 13th, 1924, in accordance with Article 40 of the Statute and Article 35 of the Rules of Court, has submitted to the Permanent Court of International Justice a suit arising out of the alleged refusal on the part of the
Government of Palestine and consequently also on the part of His Britannic Majesty's Government, in its capacity as Mandatory Power for Palestine, since the year 1921, to recognize to their full extent the rights acquired by M. Mavrommatis, a Greek subject, under contracts and agreements concluded by him with the Ottoman authorities, in regard to concessions for certain public works to certain constructed in Palestine.
​

I would very much be interested in seeing within the Treaty of Lausanne ANY reference to "State of Palestine" (or even just the word "Palestine." Relative to the treaty, the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic makes the unambiguous statement inequitably that:

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.
​

The US Supreme Court case Zivotofsky v. Kerry:

Docket # 13-628 Case: 725 F. 3d 197,
Date of Decision: 8 June 2015
Petitioner: Juvenile
Respondent: Department or Secretary of State (DoS)​

This case had very little to do with the case of citizenship, but the authority of the DoS to designate the status of the place of birth. It was a both the validity and authority of the Executive Branch’s longstanding position that the United States does not recognize any country as having sovereignty over Jerusalem. It was not a citizenship case; but a US Federal Recognition Case.

Palestine has been a state since the Treaty of Lausanne. Even the US recognized the state of Palestine in 1932 when it had a trade agreement with Palestine that was separate from the one it had with Britain. And later a US court case about Palestinian citizenship ruled Palestine to be a state.

(COMMENT)

What has evolved into the commercially designated "Arab Free Trade Area" (AFTA), which includes all 22 members of the Arab League, has only a half-century linage. The chaotic geo-political behavior radically change to such a degree that by 1950 (mid-20th Century) the geo-political nature of the overall regional territory (including Palestine and all the adjacent Arab States) looked nothing like the geo-political nature of the 1900 Region --- or --- the contemporary geo-political characteristics of the 21st Century.

Relative to trade, commercial ventures and investments, industrial export production, and technological developments, the region we call Palestine today was (in 50 year increments along a timeline) looked very different from the regional area in 1850, 1900, 1950 and even today. And when looking a the maturity of the commercial development of the Region, the influence of an 1850 Ottoman area, to the a 1900 embryonic Republic, 1950s post Mandate Period and the 21st Century arena of conflict. The al-Bekka Valley and half-the border with Israel dominated by Hezbollah, Syria in complete chaos in the geo-political sense, Jordan stable and Egypt becoming stable after the Arab Spring. But what we call the State of Palestine is a self-proclaimed (self-determination) was only made possible in 1988.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Government of the Greek Republic, by an application filed with the Registry of the Court on May 13th, 1924, in accordance with Article 40 of the Statute and Article 35 of the Rules of Court, has submitted to the Permanent Court of International Justice a suit arising out of the alleged refusal on the part of the
Government of Palestine and consequently also on the part of His Britannic Majesty's Government, in its capacity as Mandatory Power for Palestine, since the year 1921, to recognize to their full extent the rights acquired by M. Mavrommatis, a Greek subject, under contracts and agreements concluded by him with the Ottoman authorities, in regard to concessions for certain public works to certain constructed in Palestine.​

I don't know why you brought this up.

The court found that Palestine was a successor state and was responsible to honor that contract. Britain, with its Mandate, was the trustee for Palestine and was ultimately responsible.

And that is all it means, nothing else. No mention of an arab muslim nation of palestine or of the islamonazi's getting everything after the LoN deliberately stated that the mandate of palestine would not be wholly arab muslim of Jewish, which is why they split it in two.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is another diversion from the core.

The Government of the Greek Republic, by an application filed with the Registry of the Court on May 13th, 1924, in accordance with Article 40 of the Statute and Article 35 of the Rules of Court, has submitted to the Permanent Court of International Justice a suit arising out of the alleged refusal on the part of the Government of Palestine and consequently also on the part of His Britannic Majesty's Government, in its capacity as Mandatory Power for Palestine, since the year 1921, to recognize to their full extent the rights acquired by M. Mavrommatis, a Greek subject, under contracts and agreements concluded by him with the Ottoman authorities, in regard to concessions for certain public works to certain constructed in Palestine.

I don't know why you brought this up.

The court found that Palestine was a successor state and was responsible to honor that contract. Britain, with its Mandate, was the trustee for Palestine and was ultimately responsible.

(COMMENT)

I brought this up to demonstrate the the International Court, even after the Treaty of Laussanne, Government of Palestinian as the Mandatory were related, as is the successor Government as defined by the Palestine Order in Council.

The court found that Palestine was a successor state and was responsible to honor that contract. Britain, with its Mandate, was the trustee for Palestine and was ultimately responsible.

(COMMENT)

The Court described the Government of Palestine exactly as I state (cut'n'paste) needing no interpretation. Twice in the ruling, the Court talks about "successor states" but in in a broad sense. Your statement (Palestine was a successor state) is true, but only in the sense that "Palestine" -- was the Government of Palestine --- the "Mandatory (the territory to which the mandate applied)"

Again, you are trying to confuse the issue. The Mandatory, the Government of Palestinian. and HM's Government as the Mandatory Power, where all, in fact all the same entity, and just acting in marginally different capacities.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is another diversion from the core.

The Government of the Greek Republic, by an application filed with the Registry of the Court on May 13th, 1924, in accordance with Article 40 of the Statute and Article 35 of the Rules of Court, has submitted to the Permanent Court of International Justice a suit arising out of the alleged refusal on the part of the Government of Palestine and consequently also on the part of His Britannic Majesty's Government, in its capacity as Mandatory Power for Palestine, since the year 1921, to recognize to their full extent the rights acquired by M. Mavrommatis, a Greek subject, under contracts and agreements concluded by him with the Ottoman authorities, in regard to concessions for certain public works to certain constructed in Palestine.

I don't know why you brought this up.

The court found that Palestine was a successor state and was responsible to honor that contract. Britain, with its Mandate, was the trustee for Palestine and was ultimately responsible.

(COMMENT)

I brought this up to demonstrate the the International Court, even after the Treaty of Laussanne, Government of Palestinian as the Mandatory were related, as is the successor Government as defined by the Palestine Order in Council.

The court found that Palestine was a successor state and was responsible to honor that contract. Britain, with its Mandate, was the trustee for Palestine and was ultimately responsible.

(COMMENT)

The Court described the Government of Palestine exactly as I state (cut'n'paste) needing no interpretation. Twice in the ruling, the Court talks about "successor states" but in in a broad sense. Your statement (Palestine was a successor state) is true, but only in the sense that "Palestine" -- was the Government of Palestine --- the "Mandatory (the territory to which the mandate applied)"

Again, you are trying to confuse the issue. The Mandatory, the Government of Palestinian. and HM's Government as the Mandatory Power, where all, in fact all the same entity, and just acting in marginally different capacities.

Most Respectfully,
R

Are you going back to "the mandate was Palestine" shit again?

That is an Israeli talking point.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The truth is what it is.

Are you going back to "the mandate was Palestine" shit again?

That is an Israeli talking point.

(OBSERVATION)

Whereas, by Treaty, Capitulation, Grant, Usage, Sufferance and other lawful means.

You don't read very well. The territory to which the Mandate (for Palestine) applied was described as "Palestine." Palestine does not make the title, the Order in Council (for Palestine) sets the definition for the title.

The Order in Council is specific. No interpretation required. This is a matter of record, and not some artificial dispute invented by post-Mandate period Hostile Arab Palestinians to give them some justification for the jihad, insurgency, terrorism, resistance, rebels and other asymmetric actions.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The truth is what it is.

Are you going back to "the mandate was Palestine" shit again?

That is an Israeli talking point.

(OBSERVATION)

View attachment 91786​

Whereas, by Treaty, Capitulation, Grant, Usage, Sufferance and other lawful means.

You don't read very well. The territory to which the Mandate (for Palestine) applied was described as "Palestine." Palestine does not make the title, the Order in Council (for Palestine) sets the definition for the title.

The Order in Council is specific. No interpretation required. This is a matter of record, and not some artificial dispute invented by post-Mandate period Hostile Arab Palestinians to give them some justification for the jihad, insurgency, terrorism, resistance, rebels and other asymmetric actions.

Most Respectfully,
R

Your basic premise is that power politics trump inalienable rights.

You view the entire conflict through this lens.

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The truth is what it is.

Are you going back to "the mandate was Palestine" shit again?

That is an Israeli talking point.

(OBSERVATION)

View attachment 91786​

Whereas, by Treaty, Capitulation, Grant, Usage, Sufferance and other lawful means.

You don't read very well. The territory to which the Mandate (for Palestine) applied was described as "Palestine." Palestine does not make the title, the Order in Council (for Palestine) sets the definition for the title.

The Order in Council is specific. No interpretation required. This is a matter of record, and not some artificial dispute invented by post-Mandate period Hostile Arab Palestinians to give them some justification for the jihad, insurgency, terrorism, resistance, rebels and other asymmetric actions.

Most Respectfully,
R

Your basic premise is that power politics trump inalienable rights.

You view the entire conflict through this lens.

Actually, it seems your basic premise rests on a need and desire to re-write history going forward from the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.

Your compulsive fascination with this mythical Pal'isan you have invented tends to cause you some real difficulties with regard to the history of the area.

That said, one of the profound difficulties reality averse people have with contingent history in general and particularly, contingent history that conflicts with the imagined version of the history they prefer to have occurred is that the historical events are more complex than your simplistic “... because I say so", proclamations. The historical record does not consist of appeals to imagined Arab-Moslem paradises as you envision them. Yes… it is one of the rude awakenings to those who dwell in your imagined environs that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is another diversion from the core.

The Government of the Greek Republic, by an application filed with the Registry of the Court on May 13th, 1924, in accordance with Article 40 of the Statute and Article 35 of the Rules of Court, has submitted to the Permanent Court of International Justice a suit arising out of the alleged refusal on the part of the Government of Palestine and consequently also on the part of His Britannic Majesty's Government, in its capacity as Mandatory Power for Palestine, since the year 1921, to recognize to their full extent the rights acquired by M. Mavrommatis, a Greek subject, under contracts and agreements concluded by him with the Ottoman authorities, in regard to concessions for certain public works to certain constructed in Palestine.

I don't know why you brought this up.

The court found that Palestine was a successor state and was responsible to honor that contract. Britain, with its Mandate, was the trustee for Palestine and was ultimately responsible.

(COMMENT)

I brought this up to demonstrate the the International Court, even after the Treaty of Laussanne, Government of Palestinian as the Mandatory were related, as is the successor Government as defined by the Palestine Order in Council.

The court found that Palestine was a successor state and was responsible to honor that contract. Britain, with its Mandate, was the trustee for Palestine and was ultimately responsible.

(COMMENT)

The Court described the Government of Palestine exactly as I state (cut'n'paste) needing no interpretation. Twice in the ruling, the Court talks about "successor states" but in in a broad sense. Your statement (Palestine was a successor state) is true, but only in the sense that "Palestine" -- was the Government of Palestine --- the "Mandatory (the territory to which the mandate applied)"

Again, you are trying to confuse the issue. The Mandatory, the Government of Palestinian. and HM's Government as the Mandatory Power, where all, in fact all the same entity, and just acting in marginally different capacities.

Most Respectfully,
R

Are you going back to "the mandate was Palestine" shit again?

That is an Israeli talking point.

NO IT IS A FACT THAT YOU CANT HANDLE BECAUSE IT DESTROYS YOUR POV

Once again you confuse yourself by mixing up the mandate and the mandatory, Britain was not the mandate it was the mandatory. The mandate was a legal treaty that was but one of many similar treaties dissolving the German and its allies colonies. Why is it everything you dont like because it harms your POV is an Israeli talking point, yet cant understand that everything you post is just islamonazi propaganda without any basis of truth.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The truth is what it is.

Are you going back to "the mandate was Palestine" shit again?

That is an Israeli talking point.

(OBSERVATION)

View attachment 91786​

Whereas, by Treaty, Capitulation, Grant, Usage, Sufferance and other lawful means.

You don't read very well. The territory to which the Mandate (for Palestine) applied was described as "Palestine." Palestine does not make the title, the Order in Council (for Palestine) sets the definition for the title.

The Order in Council is specific. No interpretation required. This is a matter of record, and not some artificial dispute invented by post-Mandate period Hostile Arab Palestinians to give them some justification for the jihad, insurgency, terrorism, resistance, rebels and other asymmetric actions.

Most Respectfully,
R

Your basic premise is that power politics trump inalienable rights.

You view the entire conflict through this lens.

And yours is that every law has to be used retrospectively against the Jews until such a time as they are eradicated from the world. STOP TRYING TO REMOVE THE RIGHTS OF THE JEWS BECAUSE OF YOUR PETTY HATE AND START LOOKING AT THE CRIMINALITY OF THE ARAB MUSLIMS ATTEMPTING TO STEAL LAND.

At the time of writing these were the inalienable rights of the people involved and it is about time you realised these facts

 

[Shusha]

Your basic premise is that power politics trump inalienable rights.

You view the entire conflict through this lens.

Your basic premise is that everyone has inalienable rights except the Jewish people.

 

[racialreality9]

I would say the Jewish people have, in fact, forfeited their rights, because they don't want Americans to have rights.

How can you support immigration for America but not for Israel? The height of hypocrisy. But can you get away with it, because everybody wants to move to America which was built by white people, and nobody wants to move to Israel which was "built" I mean stolen, by Jews.