The OLDER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate

Status
Not open for further replies.
Moved from: Now it's a basic law: The State of Israel is the national home of the Jewish people to stay on topic.

In a broader international legal context, the “Nationality law...showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship”.

The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the international law perspective. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British Government rightly pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine”. And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality”.

https://doc.rero.ch/record/9065/files/these.pdf
 
Moved from: Now it's a basic law: The State of Israel is the national home of the Jewish people to stay on topic.

In a broader international legal context, the “Nationality law...showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship”.

The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the international law perspective. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British Government rightly pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine”. And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality”.

https://doc.rero.ch/record/9065/files/these.pdf

Where does it say that Palestine was to be an Arab state/nation?
 
Moved from: Now it's a basic law: The State of Israel is the national home of the Jewish people to stay on topic.

In a broader international legal context, the “Nationality law...showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship”.

The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the international law perspective. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British Government rightly pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine”. And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality”.

https://doc.rero.ch/record/9065/files/these.pdf

Where does it say that Palestine was to be an Arab state/nation?
It didn't. They were all Palestinians without distinction.
 
Moved from: Now it's a basic law: The State of Israel is the national home of the Jewish people to stay on topic.

In a broader international legal context, the “Nationality law...showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship”.

The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the international law perspective. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British Government rightly pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine”. And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality”.

https://doc.rero.ch/record/9065/files/these.pdf

Where does it say that Palestine was to be an Arab state/nation?
It didn't. They were all Palestinians without distinction.
But for some reason a certain people were recognized in the Mandate of Palestine, with regard to their indigenous historic rights to the land. The Mandatory power had an obligation towards this nation, which it partially failed.

You know which was the only nation regarded in the context of sovereignty over Palestine?
 
Last edited:
Moved from: Now it's a basic law: The State of Israel is the national home of the Jewish people to stay on topic.

In a broader international legal context, the “Nationality law...showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship”.

The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the international law perspective. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British Government rightly pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine”. And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality”.

https://doc.rero.ch/record/9065/files/these.pdf

Where does it say that Palestine was to be an Arab state/nation?
It didn't. They were all Palestinians without distinction.
But for some reason a certain people were recognized in the Mandate of Palestine, with regard to their indigenous historic rights to the land. The Mandatory power had an obligation towards this nation, which it partially failed.

You know which was the only nation regarded in the context of sovereignty over Palestine?
The Palestinians.
 
RE: The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

The title of the document is:

A Legal Examination of Palestinian Nationality under the British Rule

Moved from: Now it's a basic law: The State of Israel is the national home of the Jewish people to stay on topic.

In a broader international legal context, the “Nationality law...showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship”.

The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the international law perspective. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British Government rightly pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine”. And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality”.

https://doc.rero.ch/record/9065/files/these.pdf
(COMMENT)

Section I - Territorial Clauses (Treaty of Lausanne) • and • Section II - Nationality (Treaty of Lausanne) are entirely two different things and treated separately. Please don't confuse them.

The International Status was a necessary first step in the creation of self-governing institutions - by which time: a third attempt had been made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine (the British Civil Administration of the Government of Palestine) could be brought into cooperation with the government. This was a critical mistake both diplomatically and politically on the part of the Arab Palestinians.

This blunder was to be replicated by the Arab Palestinians a number of times over the last century. Even today, the most important question the Arab Palestinian can ask is:

Where and when did the Arab Palestinians actually create a self-governing institution and establish sovereignty over a specific territory? Where do the Arab Palestinians exercise the duties that involve the obligation to protect within its territory its rights?

Most Respectfully,
R
 
Moved from: Now it's a basic law: The State of Israel is the national home of the Jewish people to stay on topic.

In a broader international legal context, the “Nationality law...showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship”.

The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the international law perspective. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British Government rightly pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine”. And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality”.

https://doc.rero.ch/record/9065/files/these.pdf

Where does it say that Palestine was to be an Arab state/nation?
It didn't. They were all Palestinians without distinction.
But for some reason a certain people were recognized in the Mandate of Palestine, with regard to their indigenous historic rights to the land. The Mandatory power had an obligation towards this nation, which it partially failed.

You know which was the only nation regarded in the context of sovereignty over Palestine?
The Palestinians.

The Mandatory power also had an obligation towards the Palestinians to facilitate specifically Jewish immigration in order to fulfill the establishment of a Jewish national Homeland -this obligation was specifically mentioned in the laws that gave the Mandatory power the sovereignty over Palestine.
 
We have shown in the past that the neighborhood, called Kfar HaShiloah before the Arabs named it Silwan, was exclusively Jewish at the beginning. Here's a photo I helped uncover back in 2010 of the neighborhood in 1891:





But when Palestinians are reporting on the story of this new "settlement," they have a completely different history.

PA spokesman Yousuf Al-Mahmoud said that the inauguration of the center "is one of the attempts of this extremist government to ignite the fires of religious war alien to us and our country and our culture, and is a blatant challenge to the Arab and Islamic nations, the international community and the resolutions of international legitimacy."

(full article online)

Palestinians rewriting history of Yemenite Jews in Silwan in a most disgusting way ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News
 
RE: The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

The title of the document is:

A Legal Examination of Palestinian Nationality under the British Rule

Moved from: Now it's a basic law: The State of Israel is the national home of the Jewish people to stay on topic.

In a broader international legal context, the “Nationality law...showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship”.

The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the international law perspective. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British Government rightly pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine”. And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality”.

https://doc.rero.ch/record/9065/files/these.pdf
(COMMENT)

Section I - Territorial Clauses (Treaty of Lausanne) • and • Section II - Nationality (Treaty of Lausanne) are entirely two different things and treated separately. Please don't confuse them.

The International Status was a necessary first step in the creation of self-governing institutions - by which time: a third attempt had been made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine (the British Civil Administration of the Government of Palestine) could be brought into cooperation with the government. This was a critical mistake both diplomatically and politically on the part of the Arab Palestinians.

This blunder was to be replicated by the Arab Palestinians a number of times over the last century. Even today, the most important question the Arab Palestinian can ask is:

Where and when did the Arab Palestinians actually create a self-governing institution and establish sovereignty over a specific territory? Where do the Arab Palestinians exercise the duties that involve the obligation to protect within its territory its rights?

Most Respectfully,
R
by which time: a third attempt had been made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine (the British Civil Administration of the Government of Palestine) could be brought into cooperation with the government.
All of these "offers" required the Palestinians to buy into the settler colonial project where they would be, at best, second class citizens.
 
Moved from: Now it's a basic law: The State of Israel is the national home of the Jewish people to stay on topic.

In a broader international legal context, the “Nationality law...showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship”.

The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the international law perspective. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British Government rightly pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine”. And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality”.

https://doc.rero.ch/record/9065/files/these.pdf

Where does it say that Palestine was to be an Arab state/nation?
It didn't. They were all Palestinians without distinction.
But for some reason a certain people were recognized in the Mandate of Palestine, with regard to their indigenous historic rights to the land. The Mandatory power had an obligation towards this nation, which it partially failed.

You know which was the only nation regarded in the context of sovereignty over Palestine?
The Palestinians.

The Mandatory power also had an obligation towards the Palestinians to facilitate specifically Jewish immigration in order to fulfill the establishment of a Jewish national Homeland -this obligation was specifically mentioned in the laws that gave the Mandatory power the sovereignty over Palestine.
You people keep confusing military rule with sovereignty.
 
Moved from: Now it's a basic law: The State of Israel is the national home of the Jewish people to stay on topic.

In a broader international legal context, the “Nationality law...showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship”.

The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the international law perspective. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British Government rightly pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine”. And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality”.

https://doc.rero.ch/record/9065/files/these.pdf

Where does it say that Palestine was to be an Arab state/nation?
It didn't. They were all Palestinians without distinction.

Not true at all. Non-Islamics were dhimmis under the Ottoman Turk rule. Further, Islamism has its entire history defined by fascism in that at no time in islamist history have the non-Islamics been considered as equals. Islamics, when in the majority, have always established their claims for a privileged position of superiority over non-Islamics.
 
RE: The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

With this response, I'm not sure you understand the meaning of sovereignty.

You people keep confusing military rule with sovereignty.
(COMMENT)

The matter of sovereignty is vested in supreme authority in a political context; it is not dependent on how that supreme authority is maintained. HOWEVER! In the 139 sovereign member nations of the UN; which of these nations do not have police or military (if not both and more)?

(RHETORICAL: In the top 51 nations ranked Very High Human Development Index, ALL of them have a military force, Police and internal security forces. Separately, every single member of the Arab League have similar enforcement tools. In September 1970 The Palestinian fedayeen groups posed an internal threat in the Hashemite Kingdom in 1970.)

Please don't be so naive as to think that law and order, national defense and internal security are not key components in the politics of 21st Century Nations of successesful nations.

And most certainly, military rule can sustain the sovereignty of a dictatorship; just as it can effect regime change.
(Countries Ruled by Dictatorship)

Most Respectfully,
R
 
RE: The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

With this response, I'm not sure you understand the meaning of sovereignty.

You people keep confusing military rule with sovereignty.
(COMMENT)

The matter of sovereignty is vested in supreme authority in a political context; it is not dependent on how that supreme authority is maintained. HOWEVER! In the 139 sovereign member nations of the UN; which of these nations do not have police or military (if not both and more)?

(RHETORICAL: In the top 51 nations ranked Very High Human Development Index, ALL of them have a military force, Police and internal security forces. Separately, every single member of the Arab League have similar enforcement tools. In September 1970 The Palestinian fedayeen groups posed an internal threat in the Hashemite Kingdom in 1970.)

Please don't be so naive as to think that law and order, national defense and internal security are not key components in the politics of 21st Century Nations of successesful nations.

And most certainly, military rule can sustain the sovereignty of a dictatorship; just as it can effect regime change.
(Countries Ruled by Dictatorship)

Most Respectfully,
R
Occupations do not acquire sovereignty.

ARTICLE 4​

States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.​

Sovereignty is a matter of right not might.
 
RE: The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

With this response, I'm not sure you understand the meaning of sovereignty.

You people keep confusing military rule with sovereignty.
(COMMENT)

The matter of sovereignty is vested in supreme authority in a political context; it is not dependent on how that supreme authority is maintained. HOWEVER! In the 139 sovereign member nations of the UN; which of these nations do not have police or military (if not both and more)?

(RHETORICAL: In the top 51 nations ranked Very High Human Development Index, ALL of them have a military force, Police and internal security forces. Separately, every single member of the Arab League have similar enforcement tools. In September 1970 The Palestinian fedayeen groups posed an internal threat in the Hashemite Kingdom in 1970.)

Please don't be so naive as to think that law and order, national defense and internal security are not key components in the politics of 21st Century Nations of successesful nations.

And most certainly, military rule can sustain the sovereignty of a dictatorship; just as it can effect regime change.
(Countries Ruled by Dictatorship)

Most Respectfully,
R
Occupations do not acquire sovereignty.

ARTICLE 4

States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.​

Sovereignty is a matter of right not might.
Which is exactly what the Jews did.

They got sovereignty out of the RIGHT of the Jewish People to re-create their ancient Nation ON the Land where they had once a Nation.

RIGHT....versus the (little) might of the Muslim and Christian people

Hallelujah

Amen
 
RE: The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, even in the understanding by the Arabs,

Dr. WALID ABDULRAHIM Professor of Law Beirut Arab University said:
Link: Private Site for Legal Research and Studies‎ > ‎My International Law Studies [In English]‎ >

Occupation is an original mode of acquisition by a State of a title to a territory. It implies the establishment of sovereignty over a territory not under the authority of any other State (terra nullius) whether newly discovered or abandoned by the State formerly in control (unlikely to occur).

Between 1949 and1967, the West Ban Area of Palestine and Jerusalem were under the control of the Jordanians. It was abandon by the Jordanians in July 1988 leaving it to the Israeli Occupation.

For the title acquired through occupation to be final and valid under International Law, the presence and control of a State over the concerned territory must be effective. Effectiveness requires on the part of the Claimant State two elements: an intention or will to act as sovereign, and the adequate exercise of sovereignty. Intention may be inferred from all the facts, although sometimes it may be formally expressed in official notifications to other States. Adequate exercise of sovereignty must be peaceful, real, and continuous. This element of physical assumption may be manifested by an explicit or symbolic act by legislative or administrative measures affecting the claimed territory, or by treaties with other States recognizing the sovereignty of the Claimant State over the particular territory or demarcating boundaries.

Occupations do not acquire sovereignty.
(COMMENT)

Occupation, by itself, is not sovereignty. Especially in the case of the Israeli-Palestinian territorial dispute. The Arab Palestinians do not want to take the effort to enter into negotiates and the Israelis do not want a vast majority of the economic value is unprofitable andd the people are generational tax burdens.

Sovereignty is a matter of right not might.
(COMMENT)

While this two-bit slogan is nifty sounding → it does not have a ring of truth. While the international community would, in an ideal world, like to see this. It is not realistic. The reality is, the exact opposite is true.

Most Respectfully,
R
 
Moved from: Now it's a basic law: The State of Israel is the national home of the Jewish people to stay on topic.

In a broader international legal context, the “Nationality law...showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship”.

The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the international law perspective. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British Government rightly pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine”. And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality”.

https://doc.rero.ch/record/9065/files/these.pdf

Where does it say that Palestine was to be an Arab state/nation?
It didn't. They were all Palestinians without distinction.


No. They weren't "all Palestinians without distinction". They were an Arab group with very distinct cultural ties to each other who still see themselves as the same (Syrians, Jordanians and what are now called Palestinians) AND a very culturally distinct, historic, indigenous peoples with ties to the land going back thousands of years (the Jewish people).

Denying that is ridiculous. It's like denying the sky is blue.
 
RE: The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

With this response, I'm not sure you understand the meaning of sovereignty.

You people keep confusing military rule with sovereignty.
(COMMENT)

The matter of sovereignty is vested in supreme authority in a political context; it is not dependent on how that supreme authority is maintained. HOWEVER! In the 139 sovereign member nations of the UN; which of these nations do not have police or military (if not both and more)?

(RHETORICAL: In the top 51 nations ranked Very High Human Development Index, ALL of them have a military force, Police and internal security forces. Separately, every single member of the Arab League have similar enforcement tools. In September 1970 The Palestinian fedayeen groups posed an internal threat in the Hashemite Kingdom in 1970.)

Please don't be so naive as to think that law and order, national defense and internal security are not key components in the politics of 21st Century Nations of successesful nations.

And most certainly, military rule can sustain the sovereignty of a dictatorship; just as it can effect regime change.
(Countries Ruled by Dictatorship)

Most Respectfully,
R
Occupations do not acquire sovereignty.

ARTICLE 4

States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.​

Sovereignty is a matter of right not might.

Sometimes I honestly wonder if you read your own posts.

"The rights of each (state) do not depend upon he power which it possesses ... but upon the simple fact of its existence... under international law."

It is a simple fact that Israel exists. You can't just pretend that simple fact is not true and make it go away.
 
RE: The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, even in the understanding by the Arabs,

Dr. WALID ABDULRAHIM Professor of Law Beirut Arab University said:
Link: Private Site for Legal Research and Studies‎ > ‎My International Law Studies [In English]‎ >

Occupation is an original mode of acquisition by a State of a title to a territory. It implies the establishment of sovereignty over a territory not under the authority of any other State (terra nullius) whether newly discovered or abandoned by the State formerly in control (unlikely to occur).

Between 1949 and1967, the West Ban Area of Palestine and Jerusalem were under the control of the Jordanians. It was abandon by the Jordanians in July 1988 leaving it to the Israeli Occupation.
For the title acquired through occupation to be final and valid under International Law, the presence and control of a State over the concerned territory must be effective. Effectiveness requires on the part of the Claimant State two elements: an intention or will to act as sovereign, and the adequate exercise of sovereignty. Intention may be inferred from all the facts, although sometimes it may be formally expressed in official notifications to other States. Adequate exercise of sovereignty must be peaceful, real, and continuous. This element of physical assumption may be manifested by an explicit or symbolic act by legislative or administrative measures affecting the claimed territory, or by treaties with other States recognizing the sovereignty of the Claimant State over the particular territory or demarcating boundaries.
Occupations do not acquire sovereignty.
(COMMENT)

Occupation, by itself, is not sovereignty. Especially in the case of the Israeli-Palestinian territorial dispute. The Arab Palestinians do not want to take the effort to enter into negotiates and the Israelis do not want a vast majority of the economic value is unprofitable andd the people are generational tax burdens.

Sovereignty is a matter of right not might.
(COMMENT)

While this two-bit slogan is nifty sounding → it does not have a ring of truth. While the international community would, in an ideal world, like to see this. It is not realistic. The reality is, the exact opposite is true.

Most Respectfully,
R
Adequate exercise of sovereignty must be peaceful, real, and continuous.​

By peaceful I would think that the occupation is uncontested. If that occupation is contested then that occupation is a form of illegal conquest.

We all know that the last hundred years of the occupation of Palestine has not been peaceful and is still hotly contested.
 
RE: The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

With this response, I'm not sure you understand the meaning of sovereignty.

You people keep confusing military rule with sovereignty.
(COMMENT)

The matter of sovereignty is vested in supreme authority in a political context; it is not dependent on how that supreme authority is maintained. HOWEVER! In the 139 sovereign member nations of the UN; which of these nations do not have police or military (if not both and more)?

(RHETORICAL: In the top 51 nations ranked Very High Human Development Index, ALL of them have a military force, Police and internal security forces. Separately, every single member of the Arab League have similar enforcement tools. In September 1970 The Palestinian fedayeen groups posed an internal threat in the Hashemite Kingdom in 1970.)

Please don't be so naive as to think that law and order, national defense and internal security are not key components in the politics of 21st Century Nations of successesful nations.

And most certainly, military rule can sustain the sovereignty of a dictatorship; just as it can effect regime change.
(Countries Ruled by Dictatorship)

Most Respectfully,
R
Occupations do not acquire sovereignty.

ARTICLE 4

States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.​

Sovereignty is a matter of right not might.

Sometimes I honestly wonder if you read your own posts.

"The rights of each (state) do not depend upon he power which it possesses ... but upon the simple fact of its existence... under international law."

It is a simple fact that Israel exists. You can't just pretend that simple fact is not true and make it go away.
Israel exists where?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top