The Palestinian National Identity as it is: no lies, propaganda and hidden agendas allowed

[José]

I'd like to start this thread by making clear what the palestinian national identity IS NOT:

It's not the result of international legal documents, the Treaty of Lausanne, the Palestinian Citizenship Order etc, etc...

Anyone who has ever followed RoccoR and Tinmore's endless debates over the legal maze that marked the partition of Palestine is familiar with the exagerated importance they attribute to formal legal concepts of citizenship and nationality established by the Mandate.

The international legal framework that led to the creation of Israel has its importance in the overall debate but the creation of the palestinian national identity is not one of them.

The creation of national identities derived from colonialism like the american, south african and palestinian national identities is a long-term historical-political, sociological-psychological process that spans over the period of years, decades and even centuries and are not the result of signed documents conferring citizenships, nationalities and other unimportant legal formalities but of the gradual acceptance of the new identity by the inhabitants of the land.

Let's use the IP conflict itself to illustrate how national identities are infinitelly more important than legal concepts like citizenship:

The turning point in which the idea of Palestine as the national homeland of their inhabitants finally supplanted the idea of Southern Syria, the idea of uniting Palestine with Syria was when french troops invaded Damacus and toppled the Kingdom of Syria, in 1920.

From that moment on, the arab elites in Palestine realized they were on their own in their struggle to save their homeland from Zionism, abandonned Pan-syrianism and started to spread the idea of Palestine as their national homeland.

In the few months after July, 12 the palestinian national identity, at long last, won the battle against the syrian identity and, in the next years and decades, began to slowly spread and being internalized from the arab elites in Palestine to the common man on the streets of Jerusalem, Haifa and throughout the countryside.

Why was Jordan's decision to confer Jordanian CITIZENSHIP to palestinian refugees and WB residents a miserable failure that ended in open war, in Black September?

Because in 1954 the basic foundation of the palestinian NATIONAL IDENTITY was already formed, those individuals already thought about themselves as a distinct group within the arab nation just like americans think about themselves as a separate people within the Anglosphere and at that stage no conferring of jordanian citizenship could change this psychological reality anymore.

In their minds, the struggle for the land lost to Israel separated them from Syrians, Egyptians and Jordanians.

Before 1920, before the triumph and gradual consolidation of the palestinian NATIONAL IDENTITY this act might have made a difference (highly, extremely unlikely, I'm really just trying to make my point clear).

But by 1954, Abdullah might just as well have conferred them american, chinese or russian CITIZENSHIP... they would all be equally disregarded by the people as a worthless piece of paper that did not reflect who they were:

THE GROUP OF ARABS WHO EXPERIENCED A UNIQUE HISTORIC PLIGHT, JEWISH COLONIZATION AND DISPOSSESSION.

The abysmal failure of Jordan's attempt to "Jordanize" the palestinian people that culminated in Black September is a testament to the fact that NATIONAL IDENTITIES are infinitely more important than legal concepts like CITIZENSHIP.

But try and convince RoccoR and Tinmore of this reality and see what you get.

Rocco and Tinmore reduce the whole universe to international legislation. In their minds there's no room for sociological, psychological concepts...

The entire cosmos is reduced to treaties, covenants, agreements, mandates, etc, etc...

Their obssession with Law leads them to believe that the palestinian national identity, the american national identity cannot possibly be the result of long-term historical, sociological processes... they can only be the result of treaties, citizenship acts, etc, etc...

I'm gonna analyze some of their posts and you're gonna understand what I mean.

 

[José]

Notice how Rocco's interpretation of the palestinian national identity what is meant by "Palestinian" is strictly LEGAL, based on international and domestic documents... totally excluding the far more important psychological, sociological aspects.

The result is a monstrosity of thought that defies description:

Palestinians changing their national identity 3 times in 70 years almost as frequently as Gisele Bundchen and Naomi Campbell change clothes during a fashion show:

Originally posted by RoccoR
What is called "Palestine" and what is meant by "Palestinian" depends on the time frame in which it is applied.

(COMMENT)

When the British held the Mandate for Palestine, the term "Palestine" meant the territories to which the Mandate applied. This is stipulated in the Palestine Order in Council by definition. And when the Mandatory (the British Government) issued identity cards and Passports, the population (immigrant or indigenous) was identified as
"Palestinian." This too, was stipulated in the Palestine Order in Council and the Citizenship Law of 1925.

...between 1950 and 1988, the people of the West Bank were legally "Jordanians."

Today, the term Palestine and Palestinian refers to the State of Palestine ("Affirms the need to enable the Palestinian people to exercise their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967.") created in 1988, which extends it citizenship to its constituents ... the contemporary "Palestinian."

Most Respectfully,
R
"A balanced presentation is NOT possible"

"A balanced presentation is NOT possible"

National identities don't change every 30 years... they hardly change at all.

The only thing Rocco got right was the fact that in 1920 the palestinian identity was definitely established comprising the territory of the mandate... but it was not the result of any Mandate for Palestine, Citizenship Law or Palestine Order in Council.

It was the result of the decision of arab leaders to focus their efforts in the liberation of Palestine after the overthrow of the Kingdom of Syria in 1920.

"Southern Syria no longer exists. We must defend Palestine."

Musa Kazim al-Husayni, 1920

Originally posted by RoccoR
...between 1950 and 1988, the people of the West Bank were legally "Jordanians."

After the total collapse of the palestinian society in 48, palestinians had no other choice but to passively, unenthusiastically "accept" King Abdullah's "help" and the price of his help was the tacit acceptance of Jordan's expansionist ambitions, the price was to "accept" jordanian CITIZENSHIP, despite their already formed palestinian NATIONAL IDENTITY.

If the whole thing weren't as phony as a 3-dollar bill, if palestinians had truly been absorbed by Jordan, if they had really internalized the jordanian national identity Black September would never have happened and the Israeli/Palestinian conflict would now belong in the pages of History, having ended in 1954.

Rocco himself concedes the fact that the "Jordanization" of Palestinians was one of the biggest shams in the history of the Middle East:

Originally posted by RoccoR
Jordan, in essence made a decision to cut their losses and to drop the albatross that bit the hand that feed it. And Jordan dropped the Arab-Palestinians rights, freedoms and responsibilities enjoyed by all Jordanians

Israel Should Just Employ the Geneva Conventions

How could Palestinians have become "albatrosses" around Jordan's neck if he just said they became Jordanians just 30 years earlier?

Originally posted by Tinmore
The Palestinians retained their Palestinian citizenship and nationality. It was still Palestinian territory but under occupation.

Tinmore... palestinians "pretended" for 20 years to have accepted Jordan's national identity not because of any legal document issued by Britain but because of their psychological perception that they were not Jordanians.

No Treaty of Lausanne, no Palestinian Citizenship Act could have prevented the West Bank's absorption into Jordan if the palestinian national identity did not exist to prevent it.

Originally posted by PF Tinmore
I heard the Jordan hand picked some Palestinian "leaders" who would go along with their scam. The world did not buy it and considered that Jordan held the West Bank in trust.

Like I said, just because a foreign government does something does not make it legal.

Originally posted by PF Tinmore
You missed the point. The Jordanian Nationality Law was invalid according to international law because it was illegal for Jordan to annex that land.

Just because a (foreign) government does something does not make it legal.

Foreign governments have no authority to change land, borders, or citizenship of a country.

The Jordanian annexation would innevitably collapse even if it were legal because the palestinian national identity was/is real.

Your uncompromising, unshakable belief in the full humanity of the Palestinian people is moving... having been born in the US, you had all the reasons in the world to be just another of their dehumanizers.

So take this as a friendly advice, Tinmore...

You and RoccoR cannot interpret the conflict ONLY with the eyes of a lawyer...

You also need to have the eyes of a Historian, Sociologist, Psychologist, etc, etc...

Montelatici gave the mercy blow to Rocco's reduction of the universe to international legalism reminding the Board that 20 years before Black September the reality of the palestinian national identity and the farce of the Jordanian citizenship had already manifested itself in the West Bank in a tragic way:

Originally posted by Montelatici
King Abdullah of Jordan, responsible for the annexation as part of his "greater Jordan policy" , was assassinated by Palestinian independence advocates, when he visited the the Al Aqsa mosque.

Israel Should Just Employ the Geneva Conventions

 

[José]

You cannot allow a forklift operator to perform a heart surgery because he's gonna kill the patient.

The previous post showed the less dangerous but insane and hillarious result of a lawyer (or people with a lawyer's mindset) trying to explain a historic, sociological, psychological process like the formation of national identities.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Great posts. I don't disagree.

Palestinians are a reality. The law is merely a confirmation of an existing reality. It is what I have always called the people of the place. They were then and still are now.

 

[José]

Originally posted by PF Tinmore
Great posts. I don't disagree.

Palestinians are a reality. The law is merely a confirmation of an existing reality. It is what I have always called the people of the place. They were then and still are now.

Thanks, Tin... always a gentleman : )

The red, bolded part is the only thing I don't agree.

The TOL and the Citizenship Order neither created nor recognized the new palestinian national identity.

Do you really think these guys had the arabs' best interests in mind when they signed the Treaty of Lausanne and the Citizenship Order?

1919 Balfour to Curzon ‘in Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country….The Four Great Powers are committed to Zionism. And Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land…

Significant quotes related to the Balfour Declaration | The Balfour Project

“I do not agree that the dog in a manger (referring to Palestinians) has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.” (Winston Churchill, 1937)

Dog in a manger

You're giving the british imperialists and dehumanizers far too much credit...

The Treaty of Lausanne (Turkey renounced any claims over Palestine that was put under Allied control so the zionist goals could be implemented) and the Palestinian Citizenship Order (allowed european Jews to immigrate as the Mandate required) far from being a respectful confirmation of the new palestinian identity that arose in 1920, were two legal instruments the british used to rubber-stamp the destruction of Palestine through european immigration.

Lausanne, the Citizenship Order and the whole Mandate were not a recognition of a new people, a new national identity, they were the death sentence of Palestine.

 

[Phoenall]

Great posts. I don't disagree.

Palestinians are a reality. The law is merely a confirmation of an existing reality. It is what I have always called the people of the place. They were then and still are now.

And the majority happen to have been Jews, which you try to deny and take away from them.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Originally posted by PF Tinmore
Great posts. I don't disagree.

Palestinians are a reality. The law is merely a confirmation of an existing reality. It is what I have always called the people of the place. They were then and still are now.

Thanks, Tin... always a gentleman : )

The red, bolded part is the only thing I don't agree.

The TOL and the Citizenship Order neither created nor recognized the new palestinian national identity.

Do you really think these guys had the arabs' best interests in mind when they signed the Treaty of Lausanne and the Citizenship Order?

1919 Balfour to Curzon ‘in Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country….The Four Great Powers are committed to Zionism. And Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land…

Significant quotes related to the Balfour Declaration | The Balfour Project

“I do not agree that the dog in a manger (referring to Palestinians) has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.” (Winston Churchill, 1937)

Dog in a manger

You're giving the british imperialists and dehumanizers far too much credit...

The Treaty of Lausanne (Turkey renounced any claims over Palestine that was put under Allied control so the zionist goals could be implemented) and the Palestinian Citizenship Order (allowed european Jews to immigrate as the Mandate required) far from being a respectful confirmation of the new palestinian identity that arose in 1920, were two legal instruments the british used to rubber-stamp the destruction of Palestine through european immigration.

Lausanne, the Citizenship Order and the whole Mandate were not a recognition of a new people, a new national identity, they were the death sentence of Palestine.

International law states that the people of the place are the sovereigns within their defined territory. The Treaty of Lausanne, more or less, recognized that.

However, the British imposed citizenship order tried to fudge the Palestinians out of existence to favor the Zionist colonial project.

 

[Phoenall]

Originally posted by PF Tinmore
Great posts. I don't disagree.

Palestinians are a reality. The law is merely a confirmation of an existing reality. It is what I have always called the people of the place. They were then and still are now.

Thanks, Tin... always a gentleman : )

The red, bolded part is the only thing I don't agree.

The TOL and the Citizenship Order neither created nor recognized the new palestinian national identity.

Do you really think these guys had the arabs' best interests in mind when they signed the Treaty of Lausanne and the Citizenship Order?

1919 Balfour to Curzon ‘in Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country….The Four Great Powers are committed to Zionism. And Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land…

Significant quotes related to the Balfour Declaration | The Balfour Project

“I do not agree that the dog in a manger (referring to Palestinians) has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.” (Winston Churchill, 1937)

Dog in a manger

You're giving the british imperialists and dehumanizers far too much credit...

The Treaty of Lausanne (Turkey renounced any claims over Palestine that was put under Allied control so the zionist goals could be implemented) and the Palestinian Citizenship Order (allowed european Jews to immigrate as the Mandate required) far from being a respectful confirmation of the new palestinian identity that arose in 1920, were two legal instruments the british used to rubber-stamp the destruction of Palestine through european immigration.

Lausanne, the Citizenship Order and the whole Mandate were not a recognition of a new people, a new national identity, they were the death sentence of Palestine.

Depends on who you think are the palestinians in the first place. on what racist factors you place on the people living there and when the arrived.

Lausanne was a treaty that was common at the time and was punishment for losing the war. There was also another nation involved in Lausann that is never mentioned because it did not involve the M.E.

 

[Phoenall]

Originally posted by PF Tinmore
Great posts. I don't disagree.

Palestinians are a reality. The law is merely a confirmation of an existing reality. It is what I have always called the people of the place. They were then and still are now.

Thanks, Tin... always a gentleman : )

The red, bolded part is the only thing I don't agree.

The TOL and the Citizenship Order neither created nor recognized the new palestinian national identity.

Do you really think these guys had the arabs' best interests in mind when they signed the Treaty of Lausanne and the Citizenship Order?

1919 Balfour to Curzon ‘in Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country….The Four Great Powers are committed to Zionism. And Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land…

Significant quotes related to the Balfour Declaration | The Balfour Project

“I do not agree that the dog in a manger (referring to Palestinians) has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.” (Winston Churchill, 1937)

Dog in a manger

You're giving the british imperialists and dehumanizers far too much credit...

The Treaty of Lausanne (Turkey renounced any claims over Palestine that was put under Allied control so the zionist goals could be implemented) and the Palestinian Citizenship Order (allowed european Jews to immigrate as the Mandate required) far from being a respectful confirmation of the new palestinian identity that arose in 1920, were two legal instruments the british used to rubber-stamp the destruction of Palestine through european immigration.

Lausanne, the Citizenship Order and the whole Mandate were not a recognition of a new people, a new national identity, they were the death sentence of Palestine.

International law states that the people of the place are the sovereigns within their defined territory. The Treaty of Lausanne, more or less, recognized that.

However, the British imposed citizenship order tried to fudge the Palestinians out of existence to favor the Zionist colonial project.

What International law, LINK and DETAILS

 

[P F Tinmore]

Originally posted by PF Tinmore
Great posts. I don't disagree.

Palestinians are a reality. The law is merely a confirmation of an existing reality. It is what I have always called the people of the place. They were then and still are now.

Thanks, Tin... always a gentleman : )

The red, bolded part is the only thing I don't agree.

The TOL and the Citizenship Order neither created nor recognized the new palestinian national identity.

Do you really think these guys had the arabs' best interests in mind when they signed the Treaty of Lausanne and the Citizenship Order?

1919 Balfour to Curzon ‘in Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country….The Four Great Powers are committed to Zionism. And Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land…

Significant quotes related to the Balfour Declaration | The Balfour Project

“I do not agree that the dog in a manger (referring to Palestinians) has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.” (Winston Churchill, 1937)

Dog in a manger

You're giving the british imperialists and dehumanizers far too much credit...

The Treaty of Lausanne (Turkey renounced any claims over Palestine that was put under Allied control so the zionist goals could be implemented) and the Palestinian Citizenship Order (allowed european Jews to immigrate as the Mandate required) far from being a respectful confirmation of the new palestinian identity that arose in 1920, were two legal instruments the british used to rubber-stamp the destruction of Palestine through european immigration.

Lausanne, the Citizenship Order and the whole Mandate were not a recognition of a new people, a new national identity, they were the death sentence of Palestine.

Depends on who you think are the palestinians in the first place. on what racist factors you place on the people living there and when the arrived.

Lausanne was a treaty that was common at the time and was punishment for losing the war. There was also another nation involved in Lausann that is never mentioned because it did not involve the M.E.

It was clear. Those who normally lived in the territory of Palestine, that was defined by international borders, would be Palestinian citizens. Nobody was excluded and nobody else was included.

 

[Hollie]

Originally posted by PF Tinmore
Great posts. I don't disagree.

Palestinians are a reality. The law is merely a confirmation of an existing reality. It is what I have always called the people of the place. They were then and still are now.

Thanks, Tin... always a gentleman : )

The red, bolded part is the only thing I don't agree.

The TOL and the Citizenship Order neither created nor recognized the new palestinian national identity.

Do you really think these guys had the arabs' best interests in mind when they signed the Treaty of Lausanne and the Citizenship Order?

1919 Balfour to Curzon ‘in Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country….The Four Great Powers are committed to Zionism. And Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land…

Significant quotes related to the Balfour Declaration | The Balfour Project

“I do not agree that the dog in a manger (referring to Palestinians) has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.” (Winston Churchill, 1937)

Dog in a manger

You're giving the british imperialists and dehumanizers far too much credit...

The Treaty of Lausanne (Turkey renounced any claims over Palestine that was put under Allied control so the zionist goals could be implemented) and the Palestinian Citizenship Order (allowed european Jews to immigrate as the Mandate required) far from being a respectful confirmation of the new palestinian identity that arose in 1920, were two legal instruments the british used to rubber-stamp the destruction of Palestine through european immigration.

Lausanne, the Citizenship Order and the whole Mandate were not a recognition of a new people, a new national identity, they were the death sentence of Palestine.

International law states that the people of the place are the sovereigns within their defined territory. The Treaty of Lausanne, more or less, recognized that.

However, the British imposed citizenship order tried to fudge the Palestinians out of existence to favor the Zionist colonial project.

Your conspiracy theories are always such a treat.

 

[Hollie]

Originally posted by PF Tinmore
Great posts. I don't disagree.

Palestinians are a reality. The law is merely a confirmation of an existing reality. It is what I have always called the people of the place. They were then and still are now.

Thanks, Tin... always a gentleman : )

The red, bolded part is the only thing I don't agree.

The TOL and the Citizenship Order neither created nor recognized the new palestinian national identity.

Do you really think these guys had the arabs' best interests in mind when they signed the Treaty of Lausanne and the Citizenship Order?

1919 Balfour to Curzon ‘in Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country….The Four Great Powers are committed to Zionism. And Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land…

Significant quotes related to the Balfour Declaration | The Balfour Project

“I do not agree that the dog in a manger (referring to Palestinians) has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.” (Winston Churchill, 1937)

Dog in a manger

You're giving the british imperialists and dehumanizers far too much credit...

The Treaty of Lausanne (Turkey renounced any claims over Palestine that was put under Allied control so the zionist goals could be implemented) and the Palestinian Citizenship Order (allowed european Jews to immigrate as the Mandate required) far from being a respectful confirmation of the new palestinian identity that arose in 1920, were two legal instruments the british used to rubber-stamp the destruction of Palestine through european immigration.

Lausanne, the Citizenship Order and the whole Mandate were not a recognition of a new people, a new national identity, they were the death sentence of Palestine.

Depends on who you think are the palestinians in the first place. on what racist factors you place on the people living there and when the arrived.

Lausanne was a treaty that was common at the time and was punishment for losing the war. There was also another nation involved in Lausann that is never mentioned because it did not involve the M.E.

It was clear. Those who normally lived in the territory of Palestine, that was defined by international borders, would be Palestinian citizens. Nobody was excluded and nobody else was included.

Addressed more times than I can remember.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Originally posted by PF Tinmore
Great posts. I don't disagree.

Palestinians are a reality. The law is merely a confirmation of an existing reality. It is what I have always called the people of the place. They were then and still are now.

Thanks, Tin... always a gentleman : )

The red, bolded part is the only thing I don't agree.

The TOL and the Citizenship Order neither created nor recognized the new palestinian national identity.

Do you really think these guys had the arabs' best interests in mind when they signed the Treaty of Lausanne and the Citizenship Order?

1919 Balfour to Curzon ‘in Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country….The Four Great Powers are committed to Zionism. And Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land…

Significant quotes related to the Balfour Declaration | The Balfour Project

“I do not agree that the dog in a manger (referring to Palestinians) has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.” (Winston Churchill, 1937)

Dog in a manger

You're giving the british imperialists and dehumanizers far too much credit...

The Treaty of Lausanne (Turkey renounced any claims over Palestine that was put under Allied control so the zionist goals could be implemented) and the Palestinian Citizenship Order (allowed european Jews to immigrate as the Mandate required) far from being a respectful confirmation of the new palestinian identity that arose in 1920, were two legal instruments the british used to rubber-stamp the destruction of Palestine through european immigration.

Lausanne, the Citizenship Order and the whole Mandate were not a recognition of a new people, a new national identity, they were the death sentence of Palestine.

Depends on who you think are the palestinians in the first place. on what racist factors you place on the people living there and when the arrived.

Lausanne was a treaty that was common at the time and was punishment for losing the war. There was also another nation involved in Lausann that is never mentioned because it did not involve the M.E.

It was clear. Those who normally lived in the territory of Palestine, that was defined by international borders, would be Palestinian citizens. Nobody was excluded and nobody else was included.

Addressed more times than I can remember.

You can throw lies at it as often as you want. It doesn't change the facts.

 

[Phoenall]

Originally posted by PF Tinmore
Great posts. I don't disagree.

Palestinians are a reality. The law is merely a confirmation of an existing reality. It is what I have always called the people of the place. They were then and still are now.

Thanks, Tin... always a gentleman : )

The red, bolded part is the only thing I don't agree.

The TOL and the Citizenship Order neither created nor recognized the new palestinian national identity.

Do you really think these guys had the arabs' best interests in mind when they signed the Treaty of Lausanne and the Citizenship Order?

1919 Balfour to Curzon ‘in Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country….The Four Great Powers are committed to Zionism. And Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land…

Significant quotes related to the Balfour Declaration | The Balfour Project

“I do not agree that the dog in a manger (referring to Palestinians) has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.” (Winston Churchill, 1937)

Dog in a manger

You're giving the british imperialists and dehumanizers far too much credit...

The Treaty of Lausanne (Turkey renounced any claims over Palestine that was put under Allied control so the zionist goals could be implemented) and the Palestinian Citizenship Order (allowed european Jews to immigrate as the Mandate required) far from being a respectful confirmation of the new palestinian identity that arose in 1920, were two legal instruments the british used to rubber-stamp the destruction of Palestine through european immigration.

Lausanne, the Citizenship Order and the whole Mandate were not a recognition of a new people, a new national identity, they were the death sentence of Palestine.

Depends on who you think are the palestinians in the first place. on what racist factors you place on the people living there and when the arrived.

Lausanne was a treaty that was common at the time and was punishment for losing the war. There was also another nation involved in Lausann that is never mentioned because it did not involve the M.E.

It was clear. Those who normally lived in the territory of Palestine, that was defined by international borders, would be Palestinian citizens. Nobody was excluded and nobody else was included.

And no proof was demanded of the criteria, so a person could arrive at 8:00 a.m. and be palestinian claiming a house they had never seen as theirs. That is why the LoN placed the Jews separately to the arab's in regards to who was a palestinian and who wasn't. Many illegal immigrants were included and not one was a Jew.


Of course you mean the mandate of palestine as there was no nation until 1988, and they have yet to name their borders

 

[Phoenall]

Originally posted by PF Tinmore
Great posts. I don't disagree.

Palestinians are a reality. The law is merely a confirmation of an existing reality. It is what I have always called the people of the place. They were then and still are now.

Thanks, Tin... always a gentleman : )

The red, bolded part is the only thing I don't agree.

The TOL and the Citizenship Order neither created nor recognized the new palestinian national identity.

Do you really think these guys had the arabs' best interests in mind when they signed the Treaty of Lausanne and the Citizenship Order?

1919 Balfour to Curzon ‘in Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country….The Four Great Powers are committed to Zionism. And Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land…

Significant quotes related to the Balfour Declaration | The Balfour Project

“I do not agree that the dog in a manger (referring to Palestinians) has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.” (Winston Churchill, 1937)

Dog in a manger

You're giving the british imperialists and dehumanizers far too much credit...

The Treaty of Lausanne (Turkey renounced any claims over Palestine that was put under Allied control so the zionist goals could be implemented) and the Palestinian Citizenship Order (allowed european Jews to immigrate as the Mandate required) far from being a respectful confirmation of the new palestinian identity that arose in 1920, were two legal instruments the british used to rubber-stamp the destruction of Palestine through european immigration.

Lausanne, the Citizenship Order and the whole Mandate were not a recognition of a new people, a new national identity, they were the death sentence of Palestine.

Depends on who you think are the palestinians in the first place. on what racist factors you place on the people living there and when the arrived.

Lausanne was a treaty that was common at the time and was punishment for losing the war. There was also another nation involved in Lausann that is never mentioned because it did not involve the M.E.

It was clear. Those who normally lived in the territory of Palestine, that was defined by international borders, would be Palestinian citizens. Nobody was excluded and nobody else was included.

Addressed more times than I can remember.

You can throw lies at it as often as you want. It doesn't change the facts.

If they are lies then why cant you prove they are, is it because there is no evidence to back you up ?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Thanks, Tin... always a gentleman : )

The red, bolded part is the only thing I don't agree.

The TOL and the Citizenship Order neither created nor recognized the new palestinian national identity.

Do you really think these guys had the arabs' best interests in mind when they signed the Treaty of Lausanne and the Citizenship Order?

You're giving the british imperialists and dehumanizers far too much credit...

The Treaty of Lausanne (Turkey renounced any claims over Palestine that was put under Allied control so the zionist goals could be implemented) and the Palestinian Citizenship Order (allowed european Jews to immigrate as the Mandate required) far from being a respectful confirmation of the new palestinian identity that arose in 1920, were two legal instruments the british used to rubber-stamp the destruction of Palestine through european immigration.

Lausanne, the Citizenship Order and the whole Mandate were not a recognition of a new people, a new national identity, they were the death sentence of Palestine.

Depends on who you think are the palestinians in the first place. on what racist factors you place on the people living there and when the arrived.

Lausanne was a treaty that was common at the time and was punishment for losing the war. There was also another nation involved in Lausann that is never mentioned because it did not involve the M.E.

It was clear. Those who normally lived in the territory of Palestine, that was defined by international borders, would be Palestinian citizens. Nobody was excluded and nobody else was included.

Addressed more times than I can remember.

You can throw lies at it as often as you want. It doesn't change the facts.

If they are lies then why cant you prove they are, is it because there is no evidence to back you up ?

I am just going by what the treaty said.

What do you have?

 

[P F Tinmore]

And no proof was demanded of the criteria, so a person could arrive at 8:00 a.m. and be palestinian claiming a house they had never seen as theirs.

Link?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Just like you deny the reality of a Civil War prior to the War of Independence, so it is that you see something within the Treaty of Lausanne that is not there; a political delusion and abnormally meaningless revelation of a latent reality.

You want the outcome to be so necessarily favorable to the Arab Palestinian Cause, that your Mental Acuity become twisted and the Emotional Competence and Rational Understanding become dysfunctional.

Depends on who you think are the palestinians in the first place. on what racist factors you place on the people living there and when the arrived.

Lausanne was a treaty that was common at the time and was punishment for losing the war. There was also another nation involved in Lausann that is never mentioned because it did not involve the M.E.

It was clear. Those who normally lived in the territory of Palestine, that was defined by international borders, would be Palestinian citizens. Nobody was excluded and nobody else was included.

Addressed more times than I can remember.

You can throw lies at it as often as you want. It doesn't change the facts.

If they are lies then why cant you prove they are, is it because there is no evidence to back you up ?

I am just going by what the treaty said.
What do you have?

(COMMENT)

You are absolutely correct that the Treaty of Lausanne neither creates nor recognized the new Palestinian national identity. You are correct that neither the citizenship clauses in the Palestine Order in Council, or the 1925 Citizenship Order recognized the new Palestinian national identity. In intent of these three documents in the regard of Citizenship and Nationality was to establish a framework for the international protection of stateless persons. Its specific application to persons within the venue of the Government of Palestine (that being the territory placed in the care of the Mandatory - Briton) was to provide for stateless persons; and that they enjoy, at a minimum, the same treatment as other non-nationals. The solution was to make them citizens under the Government of Palestine. In fact, it was only after the Oslo Agreement that the Palestinian Authority (PA) (created by the Oslo Accords) (1995) was there issuance of a PA Passport.

The Treaty does not further you argument except for the prevention of Stateless Persons as the result of WWII.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Its specific application to persons within the venue of the Government of Palestine (that being the territory placed in the care of the Mandatory - Briton)

Indeed, the mandate was not Palestine. It was merely a trustee. It had no land. It had no borders. It had no citizens. All of that was Palestinian.

 

[P F Tinmore]

In intent of these three documents in the regard of Citizenship and Nationality was to establish a framework for the international protection of stateless persons.

When it comes to state succession, citizenship, and statelessness it encompasses a body of law.

The basic rule of state succession is that the people stay on their land. When a territory falls under new rule the people become citizens of the "successor state." That was affirmed by article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne.

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​

This eliminates statelessness. No state can denationalize its citizens because this would burden other states who are not obliged to accept people who not citizens of their country. When Israel denationalized 750,000 of its citizens it placed that burden onto other countries.

I am unclear on how the rest of the Palestinians became stateless. How did that happen? Who had the authority to denationalize Palestinian citizens. A state does not cease to exist when it is under occupation.