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

[Phoenall]

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?

No you are trying to imply it says that the arab muslims already had a nation when it says no such thing. There is no mention of palestine in the treaty and there were no international borders to a non existent nation either.


I have the actual complete words of the treaty and the explanation by those who were present during its negotiations.


Lausanne Treaty

Map that shows the international borders, non shown for palestine

And trans Jordan is shown as part of the mandate of palestine


And as it says

SECTION II .
NATIONALITY.
ARTICLE 30.

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

which state was it transferred to in 1923 ?

 

[Phoenall]

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?

Try the fact that the arab muslims multiplied over and above the level of any other group in the M.E. while other nations saw a corresponding decline in numbers. The evidence has been given many times in the past and all we can deduce from your repaeting the requests is you dont read them

 

[Phoenall]

01

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.

Again you confuse MANDATE a legal entity in lieu of a proper nation and MANDATORY a legal entity that acted as the government of a MANDATE until such time as the fledgling nation could prove self determination and its ability to stand on its own.

 

[Phoenall]

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.

Again you lack of reading intelligence lets you down as the successor state was Great Britain in this instance being the assigned mandatory.
Israel did not denationalise any of its citizens as they were still citizens of palestine, and also enemies of the state of Israel so were evicted to palestine by 1949
What state existed during the occupation from 1948 to 1967, or haven't you thought about that problem for your POV ?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Again you lack of reading intelligence lets you down as the successor state was Great Britain

No it wasn't. Britain was just a trustee.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Now you are just being foolish.

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.

(COMMENT)

Read what I said again. I did not say that any "habitual resident" or any anyone had been "denaturalized." They were all Ottoman Citizens. They could be nothing else until the powers-that-be concluded an agreement. Since the time of the Westphalen agreement, Peace Treaties have been addressing citizenship and nationalities issues to avoid --- to the extent possible --- excessive refugees and stateless persons. Since the end of the Korean War, the Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons (CRSP) has become more formalized. However, the question as to whether the CRSP applies to Palestinians is still in the air. The CRSP is under the cognizance of the UNHCR... But Palestinians are under the UNRWA.

The reason that there were no stateless people anywhere (but in particular the Territory under Mandate) was because of those three documents.

Article 30 did not come into effect until 6 August 1924. However, the matter had to be addressed even before the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration stood-down. Prior to the Treaty of Lausanne, there were other mechanisms in place relative to nationality and citizenship. Don't be absurd and act like this is the first time you've heard this.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You keep bring this up. As if there was some obligation owed to the Arab Palestinian.

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.

(COMMENT)

The Allied Power, having the Title and Rights, to the territory, placed the territory in the care of the Mandatory for them (the Allied Powers). "The aim of the institution (the Mandate System) is to ensure the well-being and development of the peoples inhabiting the territories in question." In the early 1900s, there is nothing in the force of law, that requires the Allied Powers to grant "the peoples inhabiting the territories" independence and sovereignty. While "tutelage" was an obligation the Mandatory was bond to honor with other members of the Covenant, it WAS NOT an obligation made to "the peoples inhabiting the territories in question." At the time the Mandate for Palestine was being discussed between the Allied Powers, it should be remembered that the territory in question was still under the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration.

I use the term "care" very carefully.

This goes back to the question we have discussed many times.

The Arab Palestinian, prior to 1993, was not a signatory to any agreement the obligated any Allied Party to a commitment enforceable by law. Prior to 1993, there was no agreement that the Palestinians can submit demonstrating any obligation that they are owed. There is no benefit in exchange for a benefit.

Until the Arab Palestinian can produce a binding document where the Allied Powers owes the Arab Palestinian something specific in exchange for something specific, --- there is no obligation under the early 1900's International Law.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

The CRSP is under the cognizance of the UNHCR... But Palestinians are under the UNRWA.

UNRWA is strictly an aid agency Its definition of refugees only applies to who is qualified for aid. The solution to the refugee problem is the purview of the UNCCP. The UNCCP has been sitting around with its thumb up its ass for decades.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Now you are just being foolish.

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.

(COMMENT)

Read what I said again. I did not say that any "habitual resident" or any anyone had been "denaturalized." They were all Ottoman Citizens. They could be nothing else until the powers-that-be concluded an agreement. Since the time of the Westphalen agreement, Peace Treaties have been addressing citizenship and nationalities issues to avoid --- to the extent possible --- excessive refugees and stateless persons. Since the end of the Korean War, the Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons (CRSP) has become more formalized. However, the question as to whether the CRSP applies to Palestinians is still in the air. The CRSP is under the cognizance of the UNHCR... But Palestinians are under the UNRWA.

The reason that there were no stateless people anywhere (but in particular the Territory under Mandate) was because of those three documents.

Article 30 did not come into effect until 6 August 1924. However, the matter had to be addressed even before the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration stood-down. Prior to the Treaty of Lausanne, there were other mechanisms in place relative to nationality and citizenship. Don't be absurd and act like this is the first time you've heard this.

Most Respectfully,
R

I don't see anything here that refutes my post.

Perhaps you could be more specific.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You keep bring this up. As if there was some obligation owed to the Arab Palestinian.

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.

(COMMENT)

The Allied Power, having the Title and Rights, to the territory, placed the territory in the care of the Mandatory for them (the Allied Powers). "The aim of the institution (the Mandate System) is to ensure the well-being and development of the peoples inhabiting the territories in question." In the early 1900s, there is nothing in the force of law, that requires the Allied Powers to grant "the peoples inhabiting the territories" independence and sovereignty. While "tutelage" was an obligation the Mandatory was bond to honor with other members of the Covenant, it WAS NOT an obligation made to "the peoples inhabiting the territories in question." At the time the Mandate for Palestine was being discussed between the Allied Powers, it should be remembered that the territory in question was still under the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration.

I use the term "care" very carefully.

This goes back to the question we have discussed many times.

The Arab Palestinian, prior to 1993, was not a signatory to any agreement the obligated any Allied Party to a commitment enforceable by law. Prior to 1993, there was no agreement that the Palestinians can submit demonstrating any obligation that they are owed. There is no benefit in exchange for a benefit.

Until the Arab Palestinian can produce a binding document where the Allied Powers owes the Arab Palestinian something specific in exchange for something specific, --- there is no obligation under the early 1900's International Law.

Most Respectfully,
R

I think you are mistaken.

I don't see how you have drawn your conclusions.

 

[Hollie]

The CRSP is under the cognizance of the UNHCR... But Palestinians are under the UNRWA.

UNRWA is strictly an aid agency Its definition of refugees only applies to who is qualified for aid. The solution to the refugee problem is the purview of the UNCCP. The UNCCP has been sitting around with its thumb up its ass for decades.

That's a rather poor description considering the billions of dollars in welfare fraud money heaped upon Arabs Moslems posing as Pal'istanians. What a shame they chose to use that money to build entire Islamic terrorist infrastructures and make huge fortunes for Islamist terrorist kingpins rather than build a functioning society.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

There is either an obligation, or not. The obligation must be formed with the Palestinians. Otherwise, the Palestinians have no evidence that some entity broke a promise to them.

Promises or obligations made amongst themselves about the Palestinians, is not the same as a promise made to the Palestinians.

IF I promise Phoenall to give you a cookie, THEN I owe an obligation to Phoenall; NOT you. IF Itake the cookie for myself, THEN I broke a promise/obligation to Phoenall; NOT you.

P F Tinmore, et al,

You keep bring this up. As if there was some obligation owed to the Arab Palestinian.

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.

(COMMENT)

The Allied Power, having the Title and Rights, to the territory, placed the territory in the care of the Mandatory for them (the Allied Powers). "The aim of the institution (the Mandate System) is to ensure the well-being and development of the peoples inhabiting the territories in question." In the early 1900s, there is nothing in the force of law, that requires the Allied Powers to grant "the peoples inhabiting the territories" independence and sovereignty. While "tutelage" was an obligation the Mandatory was bond to honor with other members of the Covenant, it WAS NOT an obligation made to "the peoples inhabiting the territories in question." At the time the Mandate for Palestine was being discussed between the Allied Powers, it should be remembered that the territory in question was still under the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration.

I use the term "care" very carefully.

This goes back to the question we have discussed many times.

The Arab Palestinian, prior to 1993, was not a signatory to any agreement the obligated any Allied Party to a commitment enforceable by law. Prior to 1993, there was no agreement that the Palestinians can submit demonstrating any obligation that they are owed. There is no benefit in exchange for a benefit.

Until the Arab Palestinian can produce a binding document where the Allied Powers owes the Arab Palestinian something specific in exchange for something specific, --- there is no obligation under the early 1900's International Law.

Most Respectfully,
R

I think you are mistaken.

I don't see how you have drawn your conclusions.

(COMMENT)

It would be interesting to see what binding agreement commits Israel or any Allied Power obligate them to provide independence or sovereignty to the Palestinians.

What binding promise was made to the Palestinians? And by whom was the promise made?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, this has been a debating point in New York for some time.

The CRSP is under the cognizance of the UNHCR... But Palestinians are under the UNRWA.

UNRWA is strictly an aid agency Its definition of refugees only applies to who is qualified for aid. The solution to the refugee problem is the purview of the UNCCP. The UNCCP has been sitting around with its thumb up its ass for decades.

(OBSERVATION)

Chapter I: General Provisions --- Article I(2) --- 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons

2. This Convention shall not apply:

(i) To persons who are at present receiving from organs or agencies of the United Nations other than the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees protection or assistance so long as they are receiving such protection or assistance;​

v/r
R

 

[Shusha]

P F Tinmore, et al,

There is either an obligation, or not. The obligation must be formed with the Palestinians. Otherwise, the Palestinians have no evidence that some entity broke a promise to them.

Promises or obligations made amongst themselves about the Palestinians, is not the same as a promise made to the Palestinians.

IF I promise Phoenall to give you a cookie, THEN I owe an obligation to Phoenall; NOT you. IF Itake the cookie for myself, THEN I broke a promise/obligation to Phoenall; NOT you.

P F Tinmore, et al,

You keep bring this up. As if there was some obligation owed to the Arab Palestinian.

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.

(COMMENT)

The Allied Power, having the Title and Rights, to the territory, placed the territory in the care of the Mandatory for them (the Allied Powers). "The aim of the institution (the Mandate System) is to ensure the well-being and development of the peoples inhabiting the territories in question." In the early 1900s, there is nothing in the force of law, that requires the Allied Powers to grant "the peoples inhabiting the territories" independence and sovereignty. While "tutelage" was an obligation the Mandatory was bond to honor with other members of the Covenant, it WAS NOT an obligation made to "the peoples inhabiting the territories in question." At the time the Mandate for Palestine was being discussed between the Allied Powers, it should be remembered that the territory in question was still under the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration.

I use the term "care" very carefully.

This goes back to the question we have discussed many times.

The Arab Palestinian, prior to 1993, was not a signatory to any agreement the obligated any Allied Party to a commitment enforceable by law. Prior to 1993, there was no agreement that the Palestinians can submit demonstrating any obligation that they are owed. There is no benefit in exchange for a benefit.

Until the Arab Palestinian can produce a binding document where the Allied Powers owes the Arab Palestinian something specific in exchange for something specific, --- there is no obligation under the early 1900's International Law.

Most Respectfully,
R

I think you are mistaken.

I don't see how you have drawn your conclusions.

(COMMENT)

It would be interesting to see what binding agreement commits Israel or any Allied Power obligate them to provide independence or sovereignty to the Palestinians.

What binding promise was made to the Palestinians? And by whom was the promise made?

Most Respectfully,
R

Awwww. You mean Phoenall isn't getting a cookie? Poor Phoenall.

 

[Phoenall]

Again you lack of reading intelligence lets you down as the successor state was Great Britain

No it wasn't. Britain was just a trustee.

And in this case it was the successor state as shown by the passports issued to palestinian citizens

Now why does it say British passport if the successor state was not Britain

 

[Phoenall]

The CRSP is under the cognizance of the UNHCR... But Palestinians are under the UNRWA.

UNRWA is strictly an aid agency Its definition of refugees only applies to who is qualified for aid. The solution to the refugee problem is the purview of the UNCCP. The UNCCP has been sitting around with its thumb up its ass for decades.

Read the remit of UNRWA again as you are wrong

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Now you are just being foolish.

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.

(COMMENT)

Read what I said again. I did not say that any "habitual resident" or any anyone had been "denaturalized." They were all Ottoman Citizens. They could be nothing else until the powers-that-be concluded an agreement. Since the time of the Westphalen agreement, Peace Treaties have been addressing citizenship and nationalities issues to avoid --- to the extent possible --- excessive refugees and stateless persons. Since the end of the Korean War, the Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons (CRSP) has become more formalized. However, the question as to whether the CRSP applies to Palestinians is still in the air. The CRSP is under the cognizance of the UNHCR... But Palestinians are under the UNRWA.

The reason that there were no stateless people anywhere (but in particular the Territory under Mandate) was because of those three documents.

Article 30 did not come into effect until 6 August 1924. However, the matter had to be addressed even before the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration stood-down. Prior to the Treaty of Lausanne, there were other mechanisms in place relative to nationality and citizenship. Don't be absurd and act like this is the first time you've heard this.

Most Respectfully,
R

I don't see anything here that refutes my post.

Perhaps you could be more specific.

Because you are ignoring the parts that do, something you are very good at

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You keep bring this up. As if there was some obligation owed to the Arab Palestinian.

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.

(COMMENT)

The Allied Power, having the Title and Rights, to the territory, placed the territory in the care of the Mandatory for them (the Allied Powers). "The aim of the institution (the Mandate System) is to ensure the well-being and development of the peoples inhabiting the territories in question." In the early 1900s, there is nothing in the force of law, that requires the Allied Powers to grant "the peoples inhabiting the territories" independence and sovereignty. While "tutelage" was an obligation the Mandatory was bond to honor with other members of the Covenant, it WAS NOT an obligation made to "the peoples inhabiting the territories in question." At the time the Mandate for Palestine was being discussed between the Allied Powers, it should be remembered that the territory in question was still under the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration.

I use the term "care" very carefully.

This goes back to the question we have discussed many times.

The Arab Palestinian, prior to 1993, was not a signatory to any agreement the obligated any Allied Party to a commitment enforceable by law. Prior to 1993, there was no agreement that the Palestinians can submit demonstrating any obligation that they are owed. There is no benefit in exchange for a benefit.

Until the Arab Palestinian can produce a binding document where the Allied Powers owes the Arab Palestinian something specific in exchange for something specific, --- there is no obligation under the early 1900's International Law.

Most Respectfully,
R

I think you are mistaken.

I don't see how you have drawn your conclusions.

Nope it is you that is wrong AGAIN

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, this has been a debating point in New York for some time.

The CRSP is under the cognizance of the UNHCR... But Palestinians are under the UNRWA.

UNRWA is strictly an aid agency Its definition of refugees only applies to who is qualified for aid. The solution to the refugee problem is the purview of the UNCCP. The UNCCP has been sitting around with its thumb up its ass for decades.

(OBSERVATION)

Chapter I: General Provisions --- Article I(2) --- 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons

2. This Convention shall not apply:

(i) To persons who are at present receiving from organs or agencies of the United Nations other than the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees protection or assistance so long as they are receiving such protection or assistance;​

v/r
R

OK, that is the job of the UNCCP who has dropped the ball on its responsibilities.

Just like the UNPC dropped the ball in 1948.

That is why there is BDS. Nobody else is doing anything.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, this has been a debating point in New York for some time.

The CRSP is under the cognizance of the UNHCR... But Palestinians are under the UNRWA.

UNRWA is strictly an aid agency Its definition of refugees only applies to who is qualified for aid. The solution to the refugee problem is the purview of the UNCCP. The UNCCP has been sitting around with its thumb up its ass for decades.

(OBSERVATION)

Chapter I: General Provisions --- Article I(2) --- 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons

2. This Convention shall not apply:

(i) To persons who are at present receiving from organs or agencies of the United Nations other than the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees protection or assistance so long as they are receiving such protection or assistance;​

v/r
R

OK, that is the job of the UNCCP who has dropped the ball on its responsibilities.

Just like the UNPC dropped the ball in 1948.

That is why there is BDS. Nobody else is doing anything.

And this did not apply to the arab muslims who were not actual citizens of palestine but recent immigrants and invaders from arab league forces.

Only in your fantasy world where you attribute roles to UN committees that were never part of their remit

No there is BDS as another looney leftist and islamonazi slime the Jews group that are working on the edges of laws and statutes. Even the palestinians have said they create more problems than they solve, and yet morons still push them as being the answer.