The State of Palestine

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Dec 6, 2009
77,700
4,168
1,815
Decisions of international and national tribunals

The U.S. State Department Digest of International Law says that the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne provided for the application of the principles of state succession to the "A" Mandates. The Treaty of Versailles (1920) provisionally recognized the former Ottoman communities as independent nations. It also required Germany to recognize the disposition of the former Ottoman territories and to recognize the new states laid down within their boundaries. The Treaty of Lausanne required the newly created states that acquired the territory to pay annuities on the Ottoman public debt, and to assume responsibility for the administration of concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans. A dispute regarding the status of the territories was settled by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. It was decided that Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties. In its Judgment No. 5, The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, the Permanent Court of International Justice also decided that Palestine was responsible as the successor state for concessions granted by Ottoman authorities. The Courts of Palestine and Great Britain decided that title to the properties shown on the Ottoman Civil list had been ceded to the government of Palestine as an allied successor state.[16]

Opinions of officials and legal scholars

For John Quigley Palestine's existence as a state predates the 1988 declaration. Tracing Palestine's status as an international entity back to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire after World War I, he recalls that the Palestine Mandate (1918–1948), an arrangement made under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, held as its "ultimate objective", the "self-determination and independence of the people concerned." He says that in explicitly referring to the Covenant, the 1988 declaration was reaffirming an existing Palestinian statehood.[126] Noting that Palestine under the Mandate entered into bilateral treaties, including one with Great Britain, the Mandatory power, he cites this as an example of its "sovereignty" at that time. He also notes the corollary of the Stimson Doctrine and the customary prohibition on the use of force contained in the Restatement of Foreign Relations Law of the United States, "[a]n entity does not necessarily cease to be a state even if all of its territory has been occupied by a foreign power".[86]

States recognising the State of Palestine

The exact number of countries recognizing the State of Palestine is unknown, due to the equivocal nature of many official statements of acknowledgment.[155] Many countries have a standing policy against making formal declarations that recognize new governments instead indicating their recognition of a state by doing business with its government.[105] Francis Boyle, legal advisor to the PLO, assisted the organization in drafting the 1988 Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Palestine. At that time, the United States was using its Foreign Assistance Act and other measures to discourage other countries and international organizations from extending recognition.[156] According to one author, by 1988, more than 100 countries had recognized Palestine.[157] Boyle reported in 1990 that the number was 114 states.[95] In 2005, Anat Kurz reported that 117 United Nations member states had formally recognised the state of Palestine as a sovereign state.[158] In 2010, Boyle reported that the number was 127.[159]

State of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Wikipedia, tough source.

Treaty of Lausanne, is not described correctly by wikipedia, or whatever you posted.

The Treaty of Lausanne, 1912. Brought to an end the Turco-Ialian war. This is how the treaty is described. Accurately, and as "The Near East, A Modern History", by William Yale 1958 describes the treaty (one of my sources).

A treaty that is not negotiated by the people is not a treaty for the people. No people from the Ottoman controlled Syria are present during the negotiation nor signing of The Treaty of Lausanne.

If this treaty is of importance here is a link to the treaty, feel free to read it, quote the treaty, and make your point, I should not have to read wiki, my books, the treaty, to discover what specific section wiki is making a point about.

The treaty had no bearing on the Jews return to Israel. If the treaty does please site where.

Treaty of Lausanne - World War I Document Archive
 
Last edited:
Decisions of international and national tribunals

The U.S. State Department Digest of International Law says that the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne provided for the application of the principles of state succession to the "A" Mandates. The Treaty of Versailles (1920) provisionally recognized the former Ottoman communities as independent nations. It also required Germany to recognize the disposition of the former Ottoman territories and to recognize the new states laid down within their boundaries. The Treaty of Lausanne required the newly created states that acquired the territory to pay annuities on the Ottoman public debt, and to assume responsibility for the administration of concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans. A dispute regarding the status of the territories was settled by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. It was decided that Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties. In its Judgment No. 5, The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, the Permanent Court of International Justice also decided that Palestine was responsible as the successor state for concessions granted by Ottoman authorities. The Courts of Palestine and Great Britain decided that title to the properties shown on the Ottoman Civil list had been ceded to the government of Palestine as an allied successor state.[16]

Opinions of officials and legal scholars

For John Quigley Palestine's existence as a state predates the 1988 declaration. Tracing Palestine's status as an international entity back to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire after World War I, he recalls that the Palestine Mandate (1918–1948), an arrangement made under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, held as its "ultimate objective", the "self-determination and independence of the people concerned." He says that in explicitly referring to the Covenant, the 1988 declaration was reaffirming an existing Palestinian statehood.[126] Noting that Palestine under the Mandate entered into bilateral treaties, including one with Great Britain, the Mandatory power, he cites this as an example of its "sovereignty" at that time. He also notes the corollary of the Stimson Doctrine and the customary prohibition on the use of force contained in the Restatement of Foreign Relations Law of the United States, "[a]n entity does not necessarily cease to be a state even if all of its territory has been occupied by a foreign power".[86]

States recognising the State of Palestine

The exact number of countries recognizing the State of Palestine is unknown, due to the equivocal nature of many official statements of acknowledgment.[155] Many countries have a standing policy against making formal declarations that recognize new governments instead indicating their recognition of a state by doing business with its government.[105] Francis Boyle, legal advisor to the PLO, assisted the organization in drafting the 1988 Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Palestine. At that time, the United States was using its Foreign Assistance Act and other measures to discourage other countries and international organizations from extending recognition.[156] According to one author, by 1988, more than 100 countries had recognized Palestine.[157] Boyle reported in 1990 that the number was 114 states.[95] In 2005, Anat Kurz reported that 117 United Nations member states had formally recognised the state of Palestine as a sovereign state.[158] In 2010, Boyle reported that the number was 127.[159]

State of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



The Palestine invented by the Romans when they renamed Judea, land of the Jews, Palaestina?

You inventing bullshit, again?

Middle East historian Bernard Lewis
Official Roman usage of the name Palestine to designate the area of the former Jewish kingdom seems to date from after the Jewish risings and their suppression. The Emperor Hadrian made a determined attempt to stamp out the embers not only of the revolt but of Jewish nationahood and statehood.
It would seem that the name Judaea was abolished at the same time as Jerusalem and the country renamed Palestina or Syria-Palestina with the same intention to obliterate its historic Jewish identity.

The Palestine that doesn't exist?

Bernard Lewis...
The Palestine entity, formally established and defined by Britain, was formally abolished in 1948 with the termination of the Mandate.
For Arabs, the term Palestine was unacceptable. For Muslims it was alien and irrelevant. The main objection for them was that it seemed to assert a separate entity which politically conscious Arabs in Palestine and elsewhere denied. For them there was no such thing as a country called Palestine. The region which the British called Palestine was merely a separated part of a larger whole [Syria]. For a long time organized and articulate Arab political opinion was virtually unanimous on this point.
 
Wikipedia, tough source.

Treaty of Lausanne, is not described correctly by wikipedia, or whatever you posted.

The Treaty of Lausanne, 1912. Brought to an end the Turco-Ialian war. This is how the treaty is described. Accurately, and as "The Near East, A Modern History", by William Yale 1958 describes the treaty (one of my sources).

A treaty that is not negotiated by the people is not a treaty for the people. No people from the Ottoman controlled Syria are present during the negotiation nor signing of The Treaty of Lausanne.

If this treaty is of importance here is a link to the treaty, feel free to read it, quote the treaty, and make your point, I should not have to read wiki, my books, the treaty, to discover what specific section wiki is making a point about.

The treaty had no bearing on the Jews return to Israel. If the treaty does please site where.

Treaty of Lausanne - World War I Document Archive



You've got to love the way these idiots don't even bother to go to the original document and check the accuracy before they post:cuckoo:
 
The history was so simple, palestinians were hebrews who converted to christianism then ton Islam, a minority stay jews.
 
The history was so simple, palestinians were hebrews who converted to christianism then ton Islam, a minority stay jews.

You just made that bullshit up, psycho.

The general consensus among historians and archaeologists is so-called Palestinians descended from Arabs originating in the Arabian Peninsula.

Palestinians are Arabs.
 
Wikipedia, tough source.

Treaty of Lausanne, is not described correctly by wikipedia, or whatever you posted.

The Treaty of Lausanne, 1912. Brought to an end the Turco-Ialian war. This is how the treaty is described. Accurately, and as "The Near East, A Modern History", by William Yale 1958 describes the treaty (one of my sources).

A treaty that is not negotiated by the people is not a treaty for the people. No people from the Ottoman controlled Syria are present during the negotiation nor signing of The Treaty of Lausanne.

If this treaty is of importance here is a link to the treaty, feel free to read it, quote the treaty, and make your point, I should not have to read wiki, my books, the treaty, to discover what specific section wiki is making a point about.

The treaty had no bearing on the Jews return to Israel. If the treaty does please site where.

Treaty of Lausanne - World War I Document Archive

I believe they were referencing article 47.

ARTICLE 47.

The Council of the Ottoman Public Debt shall, within three months from the coming into force of the present Treaty, determine, on the basis laid down by Articles 50 and 51, the amounts of the annuities for the loans referred to in Part A of the Table annexed to the present Section which are payable by each of the States concerned, and shall notify to them this amount.

These States shall be granted an opportunity to send to Constantinople delegates to check the calculations made for this purpose by the Council of the Ottoman Public Debt.

The Council of the Debt shall exercise the functions referred to in Article 134 of the Treaty of Peace with Bulgaria of the 27th November, 1919.

Any disputes which may arise between the parties concerned as to the application of the principles laid down in the present Article shall be referred, not more than one month after the notification referred to in the first paragraph, to an arbitrator whom the Council of the League of Nations will be asked to appoint; this arbitrator shall give his decision within a period of not more than three months. The remuneration of the arbitrator shall be determined by the Council of the League of Nations, and shall, together with the other expenses of the arbitration, be borne by the parties concerned. The decisions of the arbitrator shall be final. The payment of the annuities shall not be suspended by the reference of any disputes to the above-mentioned arbitrator.

Treaty of Lausanne - World War I Document Archive
 
Wikipedia, tough source.

Treaty of Lausanne, is not described correctly by wikipedia, or whatever you posted.

The Treaty of Lausanne, 1912. Brought to an end the Turco-Ialian war. This is how the treaty is described. Accurately, and as "The Near East, A Modern History", by William Yale 1958 describes the treaty (one of my sources).

A treaty that is not negotiated by the people is not a treaty for the people. No people from the Ottoman controlled Syria are present during the negotiation nor signing of The Treaty of Lausanne.

If this treaty is of importance here is a link to the treaty, feel free to read it, quote the treaty, and make your point, I should not have to read wiki, my books, the treaty, to discover what specific section wiki is making a point about.

The treaty had no bearing on the Jews return to Israel. If the treaty does please site where.

Treaty of Lausanne - World War I Document Archive

I believe they were referencing article 47.

ARTICLE 47.

The Council of the Ottoman Public Debt shall, within three months from the coming into force of the present Treaty, determine, on the basis laid down by Articles 50 and 51, the amounts of the annuities for the loans referred to in Part A of the Table annexed to the present Section which are payable by each of the States concerned, and shall notify to them this amount.

These States shall be granted an opportunity to send to Constantinople delegates to check the calculations made for this purpose by the Council of the Ottoman Public Debt.

The Council of the Debt shall exercise the functions referred to in Article 134 of the Treaty of Peace with Bulgaria of the 27th November, 1919.

Any disputes which may arise between the parties concerned as to the application of the principles laid down in the present Article shall be referred, not more than one month after the notification referred to in the first paragraph, to an arbitrator whom the Council of the League of Nations will be asked to appoint; this arbitrator shall give his decision within a period of not more than three months. The remuneration of the arbitrator shall be determined by the Council of the League of Nations, and shall, together with the other expenses of the arbitration, be borne by the parties concerned. The decisions of the arbitrator shall be final. The payment of the annuities shall not be suspended by the reference of any disputes to the above-mentioned arbitrator.

Treaty of Lausanne - World War I Document Archive

You are severely confused.

The Treaty of Sevres signed by the Ottoman Turks resulted in transfer of sovereignty over the land to the WW I Allies. The San Remo Resolution issued by the Allies established "Palestine" as the Jewish homeland.

The League of Nations Palestine Mandate established the legal, political and economic foundation for the Jewish homeland with the eventuation of Israeli statehood.

Now, even you know.:clap2:
 
Wikipedia, tough source.

Treaty of Lausanne, is not described correctly by wikipedia, or whatever you posted.

The Treaty of Lausanne, 1912. Brought to an end the Turco-Ialian war. This is how the treaty is described. Accurately, and as "The Near East, A Modern History", by William Yale 1958 describes the treaty (one of my sources).

A treaty that is not negotiated by the people is not a treaty for the people. No people from the Ottoman controlled Syria are present during the negotiation nor signing of The Treaty of Lausanne.

If this treaty is of importance here is a link to the treaty, feel free to read it, quote the treaty, and make your point, I should not have to read wiki, my books, the treaty, to discover what specific section wiki is making a point about.

The treaty had no bearing on the Jews return to Israel. If the treaty does please site where.

Treaty of Lausanne - World War I Document Archive

I believe they were referencing article 47.

ARTICLE 47.

The Council of the Ottoman Public Debt shall, within three months from the coming into force of the present Treaty, determine, on the basis laid down by Articles 50 and 51, the amounts of the annuities for the loans referred to in Part A of the Table annexed to the present Section which are payable by each of the States concerned, and shall notify to them this amount.

These States shall be granted an opportunity to send to Constantinople delegates to check the calculations made for this purpose by the Council of the Ottoman Public Debt.

The Council of the Debt shall exercise the functions referred to in Article 134 of the Treaty of Peace with Bulgaria of the 27th November, 1919.

Any disputes which may arise between the parties concerned as to the application of the principles laid down in the present Article shall be referred, not more than one month after the notification referred to in the first paragraph, to an arbitrator whom the Council of the League of Nations will be asked to appoint; this arbitrator shall give his decision within a period of not more than three months. The remuneration of the arbitrator shall be determined by the Council of the League of Nations, and shall, together with the other expenses of the arbitration, be borne by the parties concerned. The decisions of the arbitrator shall be final. The payment of the annuities shall not be suspended by the reference of any disputes to the above-mentioned arbitrator.

Treaty of Lausanne - World War I Document Archive

So your position is; that there is ample proof of a government established in former Ottoman, former Syrian territory and that government is Arab. Born in Palestine. As mandated, and administered by the United Kingdom or whoever Britain called itself in 1920 give or take a few years.

Books can be vague, I agree the British were busy, I know the Zionist were busy, Zionist do not make a country. Not to be critical of anything you post, but a question I ask is how come its so hard to learn about the structure of the society, the culture, the government, in Palestine and did the government being formed have shape and purpose defined by a document, something such as a declaration of independence, or a Constitution.

Culture and tradition of Arab people say no.

As far as I can tell as I read, Tribes of Bedouin ruled the deserts, the oasis, some cities, some families ruled particular cities.

I cannot find, and nobody has ever shown me a unified government of the people in Palestine.

Palestine was never a nation unified and governed of the people of Palestine.

Never in its history.
 
Last edited:
And if there had been a State of Palestine would that change ANYBODY'S minds?

Of course not.

Hence this debate, while perhaps historically interesting, really leads NOWHERE.

Ironic that I am dismissing history as being basically irrelevant in the case of this debate, isn't it?

I'm not, of course.

What I AM trying to do is remind you folks seeking some higher moral ground from history, is that RECENT history counts, too.

Recent history now includes a people called Israelis who have no place to go.

Expecting a living person to kill himselvf or allow himself to be killed just because some event in history put them in a land where they don't belong is rather absurd.

There isn't a person here who is going to emigrate to Europe just because their forefathers stole the land the Indians, is there?

Does AMERICA have the higher moral ground that justifies its existence?

Of course not.

If there's a solution to the Palestinian/Israeli problem (I'm dubious there is) it won't be found in history.

It will be found in the hearts and minds of the people extant today.

No nation on earth that I am aware of has any MORAL JUSTIFICATION for existence.
 
Last edited:
And if there had been a State of Palestine would that change ANYBODY'S minds?

Of course not.

Hence this debate, while perhaps historically interesting, really leads NOWHERE.

Ironic that I am dismissing history as being basically irrelevant in the case of this debate, isn't it?

I'm not, of course.

What I AM trying to do is remind you folks seeking some higher moral ground from history, is that RECENT history counts, too.

Recent history now includes a people called Israelis who have no place to go.

Expecting a living person to kill himselvf or allow himself to be killed just because some event in history put them in a land where they don't belong is rather absurd.

There isn't a person here who is going to emigrate to Europe just because their forefathers stole the land the Indians, is there?

Does AMERICA have the higher moral ground that justifies its existence?

Of course not.

If there's a solution to the Palestinian/Israeli problem (I'm dubious there is) it won't be found in history.

It will be found in the hearts and minds of the people extant today.

No nation on earth that I am aware of has any MORAL JUSTIFICATION for existence.

So basically you think that killing and stealing land, then putting the previous owners in concentration camps is cool. And because it's happened in the past that it's now always permissible.
 
And if there had been a State of Palestine would that change ANYBODY'S minds?

Of course not.

Hence this debate, while perhaps historically interesting, really leads NOWHERE.

Ironic that I am dismissing history as being basically irrelevant in the case of this debate, isn't it?

I'm not, of course.

What I AM trying to do is remind you folks seeking some higher moral ground from history, is that RECENT history counts, too.

Recent history now includes a people called Israelis who have no place to go.

Expecting a living person to kill himselvf or allow himself to be killed just because some event in history put them in a land where they don't belong is rather absurd.

There isn't a person here who is going to emigrate to Europe just because their forefathers stole the land the Indians, is there?

Does AMERICA have the higher moral ground that justifies its existence?

Of course not.

If there's a solution to the Palestinian/Israeli problem (I'm dubious there is) it won't be found in history.

It will be found in the hearts and minds of the people extant today.

No nation on earth that I am aware of has any MORAL JUSTIFICATION for existence.

So basically you think that killing and stealing land, then putting the previous owners in concentration camps is cool. And because it's happened in the past that it's now always permissible.

Jihadists stole the Middle East, genius.
 
And if there had been a State of Palestine would that change ANYBODY'S minds?

Of course not.

Hence this debate, while perhaps historically interesting, really leads NOWHERE.

Ironic that I am dismissing history as being basically irrelevant in the case of this debate, isn't it?

I'm not, of course.

What I AM trying to do is remind you folks seeking some higher moral ground from history, is that RECENT history counts, too.

Recent history now includes a people called Israelis who have no place to go.

Expecting a living person to kill himselvf or allow himself to be killed just because some event in history put them in a land where they don't belong is rather absurd.

There isn't a person here who is going to emigrate to Europe just because their forefathers stole the land the Indians, is there?

Does AMERICA have the higher moral ground that justifies its existence?

Of course not.

If there's a solution to the Palestinian/Israeli problem (I'm dubious there is) it won't be found in history.

It will be found in the hearts and minds of the people extant today.

No nation on earth that I am aware of has any MORAL JUSTIFICATION for existence.

You're ignorant of the fact that Israelis have lived in Israel since at least 1200 BCE and twice in antiquity.

No Arab country even existed before WW I. They were all invented out of the ashes of the old Ottoman Empire.

Thus, Israel and Israelis are the only legitimate entitites in the Middle East.

Now, you know
 
And if there had been a State of Palestine would that change ANYBODY'S minds?

Of course not.

Hence this debate, while perhaps historically interesting, really leads NOWHERE.

Ironic that I am dismissing history as being basically irrelevant in the case of this debate, isn't it?

I'm not, of course.

What I AM trying to do is remind you folks seeking some higher moral ground from history, is that RECENT history counts, too.

Recent history now includes a people called Israelis who have no place to go.

Expecting a living person to kill himselvf or allow himself to be killed just because some event in history put them in a land where they don't belong is rather absurd.

There isn't a person here who is going to emigrate to Europe just because their forefathers stole the land the Indians, is there?

Does AMERICA have the higher moral ground that justifies its existence?

Of course not.

If there's a solution to the Palestinian/Israeli problem (I'm dubious there is) it won't be found in history.

It will be found in the hearts and minds of the people extant today.

No nation on earth that I am aware of has any MORAL JUSTIFICATION for existence.

You're ignorant of the fact that Israelis have lived in Israel since at least 1200 BCE and twice in antiquity.

No Arab country even existed before WW I. They were all invented out of the ashes of the old Ottoman Empire.

Thus, Israel and Israelis are the only legitimate entitites in the Middle East.

Now, you know

Too bad you're totally clueless, but thanks for trying.
 
And if there had been a State of Palestine would that change ANYBODY'S minds?

Of course not.

Hence this debate, while perhaps historically interesting, really leads NOWHERE.

Ironic that I am dismissing history as being basically irrelevant in the case of this debate, isn't it?

I'm not, of course.

What I AM trying to do is remind you folks seeking some higher moral ground from history, is that RECENT history counts, too.

Recent history now includes a people called Israelis who have no place to go.

Expecting a living person to kill himselvf or allow himself to be killed just because some event in history put them in a land where they don't belong is rather absurd.

There isn't a person here who is going to emigrate to Europe just because their forefathers stole the land the Indians, is there?

Does AMERICA have the higher moral ground that justifies its existence?

Of course not.

If there's a solution to the Palestinian/Israeli problem (I'm dubious there is) it won't be found in history.

It will be found in the hearts and minds of the people extant today.

No nation on earth that I am aware of has any MORAL JUSTIFICATION for existence.

You're ignorant of the fact that Israelis have lived in Israel since at least 1200 BCE and twice in antiquity.

No Arab country even existed before WW I. They were all invented out of the ashes of the old Ottoman Empire.

Thus, Israel and Israelis are the only legitimate entitites in the Middle East.

Now, you know

Too bad you're totally clueless, but thanks for trying.
:cuckoo:
 
And if there had been a State of Palestine would that change ANYBODY'S minds?

Of course not.

Hence this debate, while perhaps historically interesting, really leads NOWHERE.

Ironic that I am dismissing history as being basically irrelevant in the case of this debate, isn't it?

I'm not, of course.

What I AM trying to do is remind you folks seeking some higher moral ground from history, is that RECENT history counts, too.

Recent history now includes a people called Israelis who have no place to go.

Expecting a living person to kill himselvf or allow himself to be killed just because some event in history put them in a land where they don't belong is rather absurd.

There isn't a person here who is going to emigrate to Europe just because their forefathers stole the land the Indians, is there?

Does AMERICA have the higher moral ground that justifies its existence?

Of course not.

If there's a solution to the Palestinian/Israeli problem (I'm dubious there is) it won't be found in history.

It will be found in the hearts and minds of the people extant today.

No nation on earth that I am aware of has any MORAL JUSTIFICATION for existence.

You're ignorant of the fact that Israelis have lived in Israel since at least 1200 BCE and twice in antiquity.

No Arab country even existed before WW I. They were all invented out of the ashes of the old Ottoman Empire.

Thus, Israel and Israelis are the only legitimate entitites in the Middle East.

Now, you know

Too bad you're totally clueless, but thanks for trying.

Mirror mirror :lol:
 
David Ben Gurion, future Prime Minister of Israel, 1937, Ben Gurion and the Palestine Arabs, Oxford University Press, 1985: "We must expel Arabs and take their places."
 

Forum List

Back
Top