Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
P F Tinmore, et al,
Oh come on.
First, be specific... What rights do you think the Arabs had? And out of those right, which do think the Palestinians did not get.
The only rights mentioned were (i) civil and (ii) religious. These are the only rights to be specifically protected. I can't answer the question if you don't identify which rights you are discussing.
Second, in 1918 Palestine was not a self-governing political entity.
(COMMENT)Where do they say that Palestinians were exempt of rights or that Palestine was not a country?
Palestine was not a district or political entity of its own under Ottoman Administration. The area (we call today Palestine) was secured by the Allied Forces in 1917 and it became a military Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA South) set up to replace the Ottoman administration. OETA South consisted of the Ottoman Sanjaks of Jerusalem, Nablus and Acre. The military administration was replaced by a British civilian administration in 1920 and the area of OETA South became the territory of the British Mandate of Palestine in 1923, with some border adjustments with Lebanon and Syria.
Most Respectfully,
R
(QUESTION)It seems you missed what it was that they wanted to partition.
Nobody has posted anything to the contrary.
It seems apparent to me that Tinmore thinks the Arabs had rights to exclusive sovereignty.
Nope, I haven't seen anything.Nobody has posted anything to the contrary.
Wait. So you are saying you are personally unaware of any legal instruments which assign territory as an expression of the Jewish people's inherent and historical right to self-determination in a national homeland on their ancestral lands? Or are you saying you are aware of those legal instruments but deny their validity? Just for clarity's sake so I can properly respond.
The native Muslims, Christians, and Jews all had equal sovereignty.It seems apparent to me that Tinmore thinks the Arabs had rights to exclusive sovereignty.
Further, this encompasses and necessitates the idea that the Jewish people have NO right to sovereignty.
The order in council was in 1922. Palestine did not become a separate entity until 1924.P F Tinmore, et al,
Are you kidding me?
(COMMENT)So, Palestine had a temporarily appointed administration. Where does it say that Palestine was not a country? What was it that the Mandate was assigned to?
ANSWER #1: Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and
• The Mandatory was selected to administer a territory to be called Palestine, with undetermined boundaries at that time.
THEN:
ANSWER #2: Actually, the Mandate for Palestine was open-ended. What the Mandate says --- is:
Article 28
In the event of the termination of the mandate hereby conferred upon the Mandatory, the Council of the League of Nations shall make such arrangements as may be deemed necessary for safeguarding in perpetuity, under guarantee of the League, the rights secured by Articles 13 and 14, and shall use its influence for securing, under the guarantee of the League, that the Government of Palestine will fully honour the financial obligations legitimately incurred by the Administration of Palestine during the period of the mandate, including the rights of public servants to pensions or gratuities.
Most Respectfully,
R..to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine,
Note that they did not say the territory of the Mandate.
Nor did it say the country or nation of Palestine, but the preamble defines what is meant by the territory of Palestine. You have been shown this time and time again and still deny the words exist. The mandate clearly states that the mandate of Palestine will be hereinafter called Palestine.
Of course they had to fudge the definition before Palestine legally existed.
This whole argument is a bunch of smoke.
Here is a 1946 map of Palestine. Look in the legend for the border line then find that line on the map.That leads us back to the '67 borders. They are the 1949 armistice lines that were specifically not the be political or territorial boundaries.
Since they were not really borders they did not change Palestine's existing international borders.
I'm not sure what you are arguing for here, then. That Palestine is one contiguous state from the border with Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon? And that this can not be changed? And that it should be under the sovereignty of Arab Muslims?
Where are those borders in 1949? Example:
Article V
1. The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the international boundary between the Lebanon and Palestine.
The Avalon Project : Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, March 23, 1949
Still there.
P F Tinmore, et al,
This did not happen in 1924. In fact nothing happened in 1924.
The order in council was in 1922. Palestine did not become a separate entity until 1924.Nor did it say the country or nation of Palestine, but the preamble defines what is meant by the territory of Palestine. You have been shown this time and time again and still deny the words exist. The mandate clearly states that the mandate of Palestine will be hereinafter called Palestine.
Of course they had to fudge the definition before Palestine legally existed.
This whole argument is a bunch of smoke.(COMMENT)Where do they say that Palestinians were exempt of rights or that Palestine was not a country?On the activation of the Mandate for Palestine, the carve-out was established in Article 25. On 15 May, 1923, the Mandatory formally recognized the Emirate of Transjordan as a state under the leadership of Emir Abdullah.
The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in August, 1924, (although it doesn't mention Palestine specifically) finally normalized the international status of several territories under Mandates; including Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Palestine as former Ottoman territories situated outside the frontiers of Turkey, and administered under a Mandate entrusted to the Mandatory.
It neither makes, gives, or promises the Arab-Palestinian anything regarding independence or sovereignty.
Don't give an empowerment to Palestine that the Allied Powers and the League of Nations who wrote the Covenant, the San Remo Convention, the Palestine Order in Council, the Mandate for Palestine, and the Citizenship Order, etc. They understood what they wrote and they understood what they were obligated to do.
Most Respectfully,
R
It seems you missed what it was that they wanted to partition.It wasn't occupied illegally. The arab countries didn't accept the UN partition, and invaded immediately after Israel declared independence.Prior to 67 Gaza was part of Egypt and the W. Bank was part of Jordan. Since that wasn't a part of " Palestine" before 67 maybe it shouldn't be a part of it now. <snip>
Finally we have a post that is staying on topic.
Fair enough, what's so sacred about the 1949 ceasefire lines? Perhaps we should address the Palestinian territory seized by Zionist Israel and occupied illegally since 1948?
So if they didn't accept the partition, that area was not there's to begin with.
P F Tinmore, et al,
Oh come on.
First, be specific... What rights do you think the Arabs had? And out of those right, which do think the Palestinians did not get.
The only rights mentioned were (i) civil and (ii) religious. These are the only rights to be specifically protected. I can't answer the question if you don't identify which rights you are discussing.
Second, in 1918 Palestine was not a self-governing political entity.
(COMMENT)Where do they say that Palestinians were exempt of rights or that Palestine was not a country?
Palestine was not a district or political entity of its own under Ottoman Administration. The area (we call today Palestine) was secured by the Allied Forces in 1917 and it became a military Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA South) set up to replace the Ottoman administration. OETA South consisted of the Ottoman Sanjaks of Jerusalem, Nablus and Acre. The military administration was replaced by a British civilian administration in 1920 and the area of OETA South became the territory of the British Mandate of Palestine in 1923, with some border adjustments with Lebanon and Syria.
Most Respectfully,
RThe only rights mentioned were (i) civil and (ii) religious. These are the only rights to be specifically protected. I can't answer the question if you don't identify which rights you are discussing.
Indeed that is what the foreigners tried to impose.
Nobody has posted anything to the contrary.First, be specific... What rights do you think the Arabs had? And out of those right, which do think the Palestinians did not get.
It seems apparent to me that Tinmore thinks the Arabs had rights to exclusive sovereignty.
So they were already there but changed their name? But they were citizens of Palestine since 1925 because they already were living there.Indeed, they just fell out of the sky like a gift from God.
Not at all . They just redefined themselves as a political expediency. As a test, please demonstrate the cultural or ethnic or political differentiation between "Palestinians" and Syrians, Jordanians and/or Lebanese prior to the early 1900's.
There was no Lebanon, Syria, or Jordan. Before 1900 they were all the same place.
Nope, I haven't seen anything.Nobody has posted anything to the contrary.
Wait. So you are saying you are personally unaware of any legal instruments which assign territory as an expression of the Jewish people's inherent and historical right to self-determination in a national homeland on their ancestral lands? Or are you saying you are aware of those legal instruments but deny their validity? Just for clarity's sake so I can properly respond.
The native Muslims, Christians, and Jews all had equal sovereignty.It seems apparent to me that Tinmore thinks the Arabs had rights to exclusive sovereignty.
Further, this encompasses and necessitates the idea that the Jewish people have NO right to sovereignty.
(COMMENT)Said who ? as that was not a right until just recently, in 1923 the Jews had sovereignty over Jewish Palestine, the arabs over arab Palestine. International treaty says this is so dated 1924The native Muslims, Christians, and Jews all had equal sovereignty.It seems apparent to me that Tinmore thinks the Arabs had rights to exclusive sovereignty.
Further, this encompasses and necessitates the idea that the Jewish people have NO right to sovereignty.
The people of the place, those who normally lived there, had sovereignty over their respective place.There was no Lebanon, Syria, or Jordan. Before 1900 they were all the same place.
Um. Yeah. Exactly. Bingo. They were the same place. There was no Lebanon. There was no Syria. There was no Jordan. There was no Palestine. There was no Israel.
So what, legally, gave Lebanon, and Syria, and Jordan the RIGHT to sovereignty over the territory they now hold? And in what way does that SAME right deny the rights to the Jewish people over sovereignty as well?
Sovereignty did not apply to those who normally lived somewhere else.
Religion is not a factor.
That leads us back to the '67 borders. They are the 1949 armistice lines that were specifically not the be political or territorial boundaries.The problem is that Egypt has no interest in controlling Gaza. And Jordan has little interest in controlling the West Bank. And Israel has little interest in controlling either, other than to prevent its citizens from being killed. So, what do any of them, or the international community, do with that? Its a mess.
Since they were not really borders they did not change Palestine's existing international borders.
(COMMENT)Apart from all the treaties and Mandate of Palestine that says your claims are a crock of shit. From 1917 the LoN ( sovereign land owners ) granted the Jews a portion of Ottoman land as their NATIONal home under extant international laws of the day.Nobody has posted anything to the contrary.First, be specific... What rights do you think the Arabs had? And out of those right, which do think the Palestinians did not get.
It seems apparent to me that Tinmore thinks the Arabs had rights to exclusive sovereignty.
Show where that is incorrectFrom 1917 the LoN ( sovereign land owners )
That is where your theory goes south. Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed sovereignty. They merely held the territories in trust on behalf of the inhabitants.
Nobody has posted anything to the contrary.First, be specific... What rights do you think the Arabs had? And out of those right, which do think the Palestinians did not get.
It seems apparent to me that Tinmore thinks the Arabs had rights to exclusive sovereignty.
Apart from all the treaties and Mandate of Palestine that says your claims are a crock of shit. From 1917 the LoN ( sovereign land owners ) granted the Jews a portion of Ottoman land as their NATIONal home under extant international laws of the day.
Show where that is incorrectFrom 1917 the LoN ( sovereign land owners )
That is where your theory goes south. Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed sovereignty. They merely held the territories in trust on behalf of the inhabitants.
