Who Are The Palestinians?

[theliq]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Surrender: cease resistance to an enemy or opponent and submit to their authority.

OK, but didn't the LoN hold the territories in trust for the people? I see nowhere that the LoN or the Mandates took possession of any land.

(COMMENT)

First the Ottoman Empire surrendered to the Allied Powers, then Turkey renounced all it authority over the territory. You don't necessarily see one country take possession of another country --- in a surrender. And, you don't necessity see an exchange of territory. The Allied Powers, to a degree, did not take possession of Japan and Germany at the end of WWII. What you saw was the extension of Allied Authority over that territory. (Noting that the minor exception in that the USSR did partition East Germany from the remainder.)

And YES! The League of Nations via the Allied Powers, did take various territories in trust, which were inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, and assumed control --- externally placed under a Civil Administration with full power of administration (executive powers) and legislation (law making powers) subject to the terms and authority of the Allied Powers. But the Allied Powers had a stipulation for a portion of Palestine which was unique form all the other Mandates: the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.

Now the non-Jewish population had two (and only two) sets of rights that were explicitly identified for protection: "nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" (ie Civil Rights and Religious Rights).

(QUESTION)

In 1922, what were Civil Rights and Religious Rights?

• In 1922, the Religious Rights were fairly simple: The freedom to believe in, and the ability to teaching, practice, worship, and observe the various religious theologies without undue interference. But it was not until 1948 that this right was considered a Universal Human Right (Resolution adopted by the General Assembly Resolution 217 A (III) Universal Declaration of Human Rights).

• In 1922, there was not universal understanding of what was meant by civil rights; but slowly evolving was the concept of equal protect. It was emerging as, in addition to personal liberty, rights to full legal, social, and economic equality.

But you would be hard pressed to make the case that right to sovereignty and independence is included in the civil rights of 1922. So the Question becomes, when the Allied Powers decided on creating a Jewish National Home, did the Arab Palestinians have this elusive set of rights to independence and sovereignty? I would argue that prior to the 1945 Charter, the right of self-determination was only theoretical. And prior to 1960, the definition of the right of self-determination was not clearly articulated.

Adopted by the General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960

• 
  
  
  • Conscious of the need for the creation of conditions of stability and well-being and peaceful and friendly relations based on respect for the principles of equal rights and self-determination of all peoples, and of universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion;
  • All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966

• 
  
  
  • All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. (Derivative from the Article 1(2) and Article 55 of the 1945 Charter.)
    • To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
    • With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the United Nations shall promote:
      • a. higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development;
      • b. solutions of international economic, social, health, and related problems; and inter- 11 ational cultural and educational cooperation; and
      • c. universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.

It was not until 5 NOVEMBER 2013 GA/SHC/4085 that we hear that Self-Determination Integral to Basic Human Rights, Fundamental Freedoms, Third Committee Told as It Concludes General Discussion.

No, in 1922, or for that matter, in 1948, it was clear that the no right of the Arab Palestinian was trampled when the General Assemble set out to implement the Partition Plan.

Most Respectfully,
R

BUT IT WAS A FACT THAT THE ZIONISTS HAD NO INTENTION OF ABIDING BY THIS OR ANY PARTITION PLAN,AS REGARDS TO THE PALESTINIANS AS HISTORY HAS PROVEN.......IN FACT THEY HAVE AND STILL DO COMMIT CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY,DAILY.

What I find absolutely disgusting about most of your pose is the justification and legitimacy you try to use, for often criminal behaviour of the many Jewish sectors in Israel today and the past........towards the Palestinians.

I think you would have clearly realised by now that I find you quite sickening, as an individual,I don't even believe you are Jewish.....so what motivates you,I find impossible to understand....what is that irritating and synthetic end you use at the end of each post .;
?????that's right.

Most Respectfully(UCK)

 

[theliq]

P F Tinmore, et al,

In 1948, the first occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip was accomplished by the Jordanians and the Egyptians.

Preventing people from exercising their rights (usually by illegal external interference) is a crime against those people.

(COMMENT)

It was the Arab League that, using armed force and military aggression, exercised external interference in an attempt to circumvent the UN decision to implement the Partition Plan.

Most Respectfully,
R

Why do you consider the 1948 war to be external interference?

How many foreign arab muslim nations invaded the mandate of Palestine to wipe out the Jews and stop them from exercising self determination, and in the process trample all over the arab muslims right to self determination.

You can run Phoney.....but you can never hide.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Surrender: cease resistance to an enemy or opponent and submit to their authority.

OK, but didn't the LoN hold the territories in trust for the people? I see nowhere that the LoN or the Mandates took possession of any land.

(COMMENT)

First the Ottoman Empire surrendered to the Allied Powers, then Turkey renounced all it authority over the territory. You don't necessarily see one country take possession of another country --- in a surrender. And, you don't necessity see an exchange of territory. The Allied Powers, to a degree, did not take possession of Japan and Germany at the end of WWII. What you saw was the extension of Allied Authority over that territory. (Noting that the minor exception in that the USSR did partition East Germany from the remainder.)

And YES! The League of Nations via the Allied Powers, did take various territories in trust, which were inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, and assumed control --- externally placed under a Civil Administration with full power of administration (executive powers) and legislation (law making powers) subject to the terms and authority of the Allied Powers. But the Allied Powers had a stipulation for a portion of Palestine which was unique form all the other Mandates: the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.

Now the non-Jewish population had two (and only two) sets of rights that were explicitly identified for protection: "nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" (ie Civil Rights and Religious Rights).

(QUESTION)

In 1922, what were Civil Rights and Religious Rights?

• In 1922, the Religious Rights were fairly simple: The freedom to believe in, and the ability to teaching, practice, worship, and observe the various religious theologies without undue interference. But it was not until 1948 that this right was considered a Universal Human Right (Resolution adopted by the General Assembly Resolution 217 A (III) Universal Declaration of Human Rights).

• In 1922, there was not universal understanding of what was meant by civil rights; but slowly evolving was the concept of equal protect. It was emerging as, in addition to personal liberty, rights to full legal, social, and economic equality.

But you would be hard pressed to make the case that right to sovereignty and independence is included in the civil rights of 1922. So the Question becomes, when the Allied Powers decided on creating a Jewish National Home, did the Arab Palestinians have this elusive set of rights to independence and sovereignty? I would argue that prior to the 1945 Charter, the right of self-determination was only theoretical. And prior to 1960, the definition of the right of self-determination was not clearly articulated.

Adopted by the General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960

• 
  
  
  • Conscious of the need for the creation of conditions of stability and well-being and peaceful and friendly relations based on respect for the principles of equal rights and self-determination of all peoples, and of universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion;
  • All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966

• 
  
  
  • All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. (Derivative from the Article 1(2) and Article 55 of the 1945 Charter.)
    • To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
    • With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the United Nations shall promote:
      • a. higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development;
      • b. solutions of international economic, social, health, and related problems; and inter- 11 ational cultural and educational cooperation; and
      • c. universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.

It was not until 5 NOVEMBER 2013 GA/SHC/4085 that we hear that Self-Determination Integral to Basic Human Rights, Fundamental Freedoms, Third Committee Told as It Concludes General Discussion.

No, in 1922, or for that matter, in 1948, it was clear that the no right of the Arab Palestinian was trampled when the General Assemble set out to implement the Partition Plan.

Most Respectfully,
R

In 1922, what were Civil Rights and Religious Rights?​

Britain tried to remove the Palestinians from their Political Rights. That is the right to develop their own government. This ran contrary to the rights implied by The League of Nations Covenant.

Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.​

I believe that the meaning of "stand alone" to be when they created their own functioning government and the Mandate was charged with assisting them to do that.

Britain violently prevented the Palestinians from creating their own government while imposing by force laws and policies against the wishes and best interest of the people.

Since the Mandate failed to create an independent state the creation of Israel was a completely separate issue.

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Surrender: cease resistance to an enemy or opponent and submit to their authority.

OK, but didn't the LoN hold the territories in trust for the people? I see nowhere that the LoN or the Mandates took possession of any land.

(COMMENT)

First the Ottoman Empire surrendered to the Allied Powers, then Turkey renounced all it authority over the territory. You don't necessarily see one country take possession of another country --- in a surrender. And, you don't necessity see an exchange of territory. The Allied Powers, to a degree, did not take possession of Japan and Germany at the end of WWII. What you saw was the extension of Allied Authority over that territory. (Noting that the minor exception in that the USSR did partition East Germany from the remainder.)

And YES! The League of Nations via the Allied Powers, did take various territories in trust, which were inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, and assumed control --- externally placed under a Civil Administration with full power of administration (executive powers) and legislation (law making powers) subject to the terms and authority of the Allied Powers. But the Allied Powers had a stipulation for a portion of Palestine which was unique form all the other Mandates: the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.

Now the non-Jewish population had two (and only two) sets of rights that were explicitly identified for protection: "nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" (ie Civil Rights and Religious Rights).

(QUESTION)

In 1922, what were Civil Rights and Religious Rights?

• In 1922, the Religious Rights were fairly simple: The freedom to believe in, and the ability to teaching, practice, worship, and observe the various religious theologies without undue interference. But it was not until 1948 that this right was considered a Universal Human Right (Resolution adopted by the General Assembly Resolution 217 A (III) Universal Declaration of Human Rights).

• In 1922, there was not universal understanding of what was meant by civil rights; but slowly evolving was the concept of equal protect. It was emerging as, in addition to personal liberty, rights to full legal, social, and economic equality.

But you would be hard pressed to make the case that right to sovereignty and independence is included in the civil rights of 1922. So the Question becomes, when the Allied Powers decided on creating a Jewish National Home, did the Arab Palestinians have this elusive set of rights to independence and sovereignty? I would argue that prior to the 1945 Charter, the right of self-determination was only theoretical. And prior to 1960, the definition of the right of self-determination was not clearly articulated.

Adopted by the General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960

• 
  
  
  • Conscious of the need for the creation of conditions of stability and well-being and peaceful and friendly relations based on respect for the principles of equal rights and self-determination of all peoples, and of universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion;
  • All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966

• 
  
  
  • All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. (Derivative from the Article 1(2) and Article 55 of the 1945 Charter.)
    • To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
    • With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the United Nations shall promote:
      • a. higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development;
      • b. solutions of international economic, social, health, and related problems; and inter- 11 ational cultural and educational cooperation; and
      • c. universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.

It was not until 5 NOVEMBER 2013 GA/SHC/4085 that we hear that Self-Determination Integral to Basic Human Rights, Fundamental Freedoms, Third Committee Told as It Concludes General Discussion.

No, in 1922, or for that matter, in 1948, it was clear that the no right of the Arab Palestinian was trampled when the General Assemble set out to implement the Partition Plan.

Most Respectfully,
R

In 1922, what were Civil Rights and Religious Rights?​

Britain tried to remove the Palestinians from their Political Rights. That is the right to develop their own government. This ran contrary to the rights implied by The League of Nations Covenant.

Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.​

I believe that the meaning of "stand alone" to be when they created their own functioning government and the Mandate was charged with assisting them to do that.

Britain violently prevented the Palestinians from creating their own government while imposing by force laws and policies against the wishes and best interest of the people.

Since the Mandate failed to create an independent state the creation of Israel was a completely separate issue.

I have asked you to prove your claims about the British many times, yet you never have any proof. Why is that?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Sovereignty and Independence --- the idea of self-determination, are all relatively new ideas over the last century; --- emerging within the last 100 years since the beginning of World War I. And none of this has to do with "land ownership." This topic is not about the title and deeds to the land --- but the leadership of the population over the land.

The character of every mandate differs according to the stage of the development of the people. Article 22, of the League of Nations Covenant, stipulates the principle and Key Test: wherein --- "independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.

In the last century, the remaining Hostile Arab Palestinians have never demonstrated that they could meet this test; that they could ever stand alone. Not in 1920s, not in the 1930s, not in the 1940s, not during Jordanian occupation, not during Israel security containment and not today as the State of Palestine within the territory occupied since 1967.

Wouldn't have happened without the Zionist invasion.

What Zionist invasion would that be, how about a link showing there was a Zionist invasion and not a migration at the request of the land legal owners ?

Who would those "legal" land owners be.

Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed any land.

(COMMENT)

The entire concepts of the Arab Palestinian is based on the continuing struggle to removed Israeli Independence and sovereignty from anywhere in the region and replace it with some Arab Dominance; something more advanced --- beyond that of the demonstrated leadership of an Arab Palestinian Failed State (having failed at some of the basic conditions and responsibilities of a sovereign government) exhibited in the last half century (even before the time of Israeli occupation). The Arab Palestinian, as represented today, is not capable of living in peace --- even with other Arabs. The attempt to assassinate the Jordanian King in the 1970's --- when Jordan was attempting to help the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) --- is an example of the basic capacity for peace. This was replicated in 2005 after the Israeli disengagement from Gaza. In fact, the current coalition government behind the Palestinians is based on the mantra of liberating Palestine, as a national duty, from the river to the sea, and from north to south. Whatever the impression that the HoAP may have given in terms of a two-state solution living side by side in peace, the actual agenda for the HoAP is the removal of Israeli sovereignty (recognition of "Israel" and the legitimacy of its presence on any part of Palestine). Even if Israeli Justice Minister Tzipi Livni come to the table with the long-term strategic goal leading to a two-state solution and an overall making an overall settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict, it cannot gain any traction if the ultimate objective of the Unity Government (HAMAS+Fatah) is the dismantlement of Israeli sovereignty.

As long as the HoAP have, in any numbers, a body within the population that believes that Israel needs to be expunged from the Middle East, the shadow casts by this demonstrated threat remains and requires containment.

Most Respectfully,
R

This topic is not about the title and deeds to the land --- but the leadership of the population over the land.​

Indeed, it is about who has the right to self determination, independence, and sovereignty.

That right belongs to the Palestinians as several UN resolutions state.

Then define what you mean by Palestinians, and which sectors have what rights ?

The automatic, ipso facto, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel

 

[theliq]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Sovereignty and Independence --- the idea of self-determination, are all relatively new ideas over the last century; --- emerging within the last 100 years since the beginning of World War I. And none of this has to do with "land ownership." This topic is not about the title and deeds to the land --- but the leadership of the population over the land.

The character of every mandate differs according to the stage of the development of the people. Article 22, of the League of Nations Covenant, stipulates the principle and Key Test: wherein --- "independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.

In the last century, the remaining Hostile Arab Palestinians have never demonstrated that they could meet this test; that they could ever stand alone. Not in 1920s, not in the 1930s, not in the 1940s, not during Jordanian occupation, not during Israel security containment and not today as the State of Palestine within the territory occupied since 1967.

What Zionist invasion would that be, how about a link showing there was a Zionist invasion and not a migration at the request of the land legal owners ?

Who would those "legal" land owners be.

Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed any land.

(COMMENT)

The entire concepts of the Arab Palestinian is based on the continuing struggle to removed Israeli Independence and sovereignty from anywhere in the region and replace it with some Arab Dominance; something more advanced --- beyond that of the demonstrated leadership of an Arab Palestinian Failed State (having failed at some of the basic conditions and responsibilities of a sovereign government) exhibited in the last half century (even before the time of Israeli occupation). The Arab Palestinian, as represented today, is not capable of living in peace --- even with other Arabs. The attempt to assassinate the Jordanian King in the 1970's --- when Jordan was attempting to help the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) --- is an example of the basic capacity for peace. This was replicated in 2005 after the Israeli disengagement from Gaza. In fact, the current coalition government behind the Palestinians is based on the mantra of liberating Palestine, as a national duty, from the river to the sea, and from north to south. Whatever the impression that the HoAP may have given in terms of a two-state solution living side by side in peace, the actual agenda for the HoAP is the removal of Israeli sovereignty (recognition of "Israel" and the legitimacy of its presence on any part of Palestine). Even if Israeli Justice Minister Tzipi Livni come to the table with the long-term strategic goal leading to a two-state solution and an overall making an overall settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict, it cannot gain any traction if the ultimate objective of the Unity Government (HAMAS+Fatah) is the dismantlement of Israeli sovereignty.

As long as the HoAP have, in any numbers, a body within the population that believes that Israel needs to be expunged from the Middle East, the shadow casts by this demonstrated threat remains and requires containment.

Most Respectfully,
R

This topic is not about the title and deeds to the land --- but the leadership of the population over the land.​

Indeed, it is about who has the right to self determination, independence, and sovereignty.

That right belongs to the Palestinians as several UN resolutions state.

Then define what you mean by Palestinians, and which sectors have what rights ?

The automatic, ipso facto, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel

"Palestine" being the operative word here

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Surrender: cease resistance to an enemy or opponent and submit to their authority.

OK, but didn't the LoN hold the territories in trust for the people? I see nowhere that the LoN or the Mandates took possession of any land.

(COMMENT)

First the Ottoman Empire surrendered to the Allied Powers, then Turkey renounced all it authority over the territory. You don't necessarily see one country take possession of another country --- in a surrender. And, you don't necessity see an exchange of territory. The Allied Powers, to a degree, did not take possession of Japan and Germany at the end of WWII. What you saw was the extension of Allied Authority over that territory. (Noting that the minor exception in that the USSR did partition East Germany from the remainder.)

And YES! The League of Nations via the Allied Powers, did take various territories in trust, which were inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, and assumed control --- externally placed under a Civil Administration with full power of administration (executive powers) and legislation (law making powers) subject to the terms and authority of the Allied Powers. But the Allied Powers had a stipulation for a portion of Palestine which was unique form all the other Mandates: the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.

Now the non-Jewish population had two (and only two) sets of rights that were explicitly identified for protection: "nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" (ie Civil Rights and Religious Rights).

(QUESTION)

In 1922, what were Civil Rights and Religious Rights?

• In 1922, the Religious Rights were fairly simple: The freedom to believe in, and the ability to teaching, practice, worship, and observe the various religious theologies without undue interference. But it was not until 1948 that this right was considered a Universal Human Right (Resolution adopted by the General Assembly Resolution 217 A (III) Universal Declaration of Human Rights).

• In 1922, there was not universal understanding of what was meant by civil rights; but slowly evolving was the concept of equal protect. It was emerging as, in addition to personal liberty, rights to full legal, social, and economic equality.

But you would be hard pressed to make the case that right to sovereignty and independence is included in the civil rights of 1922. So the Question becomes, when the Allied Powers decided on creating a Jewish National Home, did the Arab Palestinians have this elusive set of rights to independence and sovereignty? I would argue that prior to the 1945 Charter, the right of self-determination was only theoretical. And prior to 1960, the definition of the right of self-determination was not clearly articulated.

Adopted by the General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960

• 
  
  
  • Conscious of the need for the creation of conditions of stability and well-being and peaceful and friendly relations based on respect for the principles of equal rights and self-determination of all peoples, and of universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion;
  • All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966

• 
  
  
  • All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. (Derivative from the Article 1(2) and Article 55 of the 1945 Charter.)
    • To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
    • With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the United Nations shall promote:
      • a. higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development;
      • b. solutions of international economic, social, health, and related problems; and inter- 11 ational cultural and educational cooperation; and
      • c. universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.

It was not until 5 NOVEMBER 2013 GA/SHC/4085 that we hear that Self-Determination Integral to Basic Human Rights, Fundamental Freedoms, Third Committee Told as It Concludes General Discussion.

No, in 1922, or for that matter, in 1948, it was clear that the no right of the Arab Palestinian was trampled when the General Assemble set out to implement the Partition Plan.

Most Respectfully,
R

BUT IT WAS A FACT THAT THE ZIONISTS HAD NO INTENTION OF ABIDING BY THIS OR ANY PARTITION PLAN,AS REGARDS TO THE PALESTINIANS AS HISTORY HAS PROVEN.......IN FACT THEY HAVE AND STILL DO COMMIT CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY,DAILY.

What I find absolutely disgusting about most of your pose is the justification and legitimacy you try to use, for often criminal behaviour of the many Jewish sectors in Israel today and the past........towards the Palestinians.

I think you would have clearly realised by now that I find you quite sickening, as an individual,I don't even believe you are Jewish.....so what motivates you,I find impossible to understand....what is that irritating and synthetic end you use at the end of each post .;
?????that's right.

Most Respectfully(UCK)

Was it then you will have no problem in providing the evidence from a non partisan source.

Since when has responding to terrorism and violence been against international law, because that is what Israel is doing. Why do you think the ICJ is dragging its heels and asking for more time before giving its findings into the claims of war crimes in gaza last summer

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Sovereignty and Independence --- the idea of self-determination, are all relatively new ideas over the last century; --- emerging within the last 100 years since the beginning of World War I. And none of this has to do with "land ownership." This topic is not about the title and deeds to the land --- but the leadership of the population over the land.

The character of every mandate differs according to the stage of the development of the people. Article 22, of the League of Nations Covenant, stipulates the principle and Key Test: wherein --- "independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.

In the last century, the remaining Hostile Arab Palestinians have never demonstrated that they could meet this test; that they could ever stand alone. Not in 1920s, not in the 1930s, not in the 1940s, not during Jordanian occupation, not during Israel security containment and not today as the State of Palestine within the territory occupied since 1967.

What Zionist invasion would that be, how about a link showing there was a Zionist invasion and not a migration at the request of the land legal owners ?

Who would those "legal" land owners be.

Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed any land.

(COMMENT)

The entire concepts of the Arab Palestinian is based on the continuing struggle to removed Israeli Independence and sovereignty from anywhere in the region and replace it with some Arab Dominance; something more advanced --- beyond that of the demonstrated leadership of an Arab Palestinian Failed State (having failed at some of the basic conditions and responsibilities of a sovereign government) exhibited in the last half century (even before the time of Israeli occupation). The Arab Palestinian, as represented today, is not capable of living in peace --- even with other Arabs. The attempt to assassinate the Jordanian King in the 1970's --- when Jordan was attempting to help the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) --- is an example of the basic capacity for peace. This was replicated in 2005 after the Israeli disengagement from Gaza. In fact, the current coalition government behind the Palestinians is based on the mantra of liberating Palestine, as a national duty, from the river to the sea, and from north to south. Whatever the impression that the HoAP may have given in terms of a two-state solution living side by side in peace, the actual agenda for the HoAP is the removal of Israeli sovereignty (recognition of "Israel" and the legitimacy of its presence on any part of Palestine). Even if Israeli Justice Minister Tzipi Livni come to the table with the long-term strategic goal leading to a two-state solution and an overall making an overall settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict, it cannot gain any traction if the ultimate objective of the Unity Government (HAMAS+Fatah) is the dismantlement of Israeli sovereignty.

As long as the HoAP have, in any numbers, a body within the population that believes that Israel needs to be expunged from the Middle East, the shadow casts by this demonstrated threat remains and requires containment.

Most Respectfully,
R

This topic is not about the title and deeds to the land --- but the leadership of the population over the land.​

Indeed, it is about who has the right to self determination, independence, and sovereignty.

That right belongs to the Palestinians as several UN resolutions state.

Then define what you mean by Palestinians, and which sectors have what rights ?

The automatic, ipso facto, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel

But it did not say that did it, what it said was the inhabitants of the mandate for Palestine would become BRITISH Palestinian citizens, which is why the passports were British passports and not Palestinian ones.


Still you have not defined who are Palestinians and which rights are accorded to which sectors of the mandate for palestines inhabitants ?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Sovereignty and Independence --- the idea of self-determination, are all relatively new ideas over the last century; --- emerging within the last 100 years since the beginning of World War I. And none of this has to do with "land ownership." This topic is not about the title and deeds to the land --- but the leadership of the population over the land.

The character of every mandate differs according to the stage of the development of the people. Article 22, of the League of Nations Covenant, stipulates the principle and Key Test: wherein --- "independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.

In the last century, the remaining Hostile Arab Palestinians have never demonstrated that they could meet this test; that they could ever stand alone. Not in 1920s, not in the 1930s, not in the 1940s, not during Jordanian occupation, not during Israel security containment and not today as the State of Palestine within the territory occupied since 1967.

Who would those "legal" land owners be.

Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed any land.

(COMMENT)

The entire concepts of the Arab Palestinian is based on the continuing struggle to removed Israeli Independence and sovereignty from anywhere in the region and replace it with some Arab Dominance; something more advanced --- beyond that of the demonstrated leadership of an Arab Palestinian Failed State (having failed at some of the basic conditions and responsibilities of a sovereign government) exhibited in the last half century (even before the time of Israeli occupation). The Arab Palestinian, as represented today, is not capable of living in peace --- even with other Arabs. The attempt to assassinate the Jordanian King in the 1970's --- when Jordan was attempting to help the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) --- is an example of the basic capacity for peace. This was replicated in 2005 after the Israeli disengagement from Gaza. In fact, the current coalition government behind the Palestinians is based on the mantra of liberating Palestine, as a national duty, from the river to the sea, and from north to south. Whatever the impression that the HoAP may have given in terms of a two-state solution living side by side in peace, the actual agenda for the HoAP is the removal of Israeli sovereignty (recognition of "Israel" and the legitimacy of its presence on any part of Palestine). Even if Israeli Justice Minister Tzipi Livni come to the table with the long-term strategic goal leading to a two-state solution and an overall making an overall settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict, it cannot gain any traction if the ultimate objective of the Unity Government (HAMAS+Fatah) is the dismantlement of Israeli sovereignty.

As long as the HoAP have, in any numbers, a body within the population that believes that Israel needs to be expunged from the Middle East, the shadow casts by this demonstrated threat remains and requires containment.

Most Respectfully,
R

This topic is not about the title and deeds to the land --- but the leadership of the population over the land.​

Indeed, it is about who has the right to self determination, independence, and sovereignty.

That right belongs to the Palestinians as several UN resolutions state.

Then define what you mean by Palestinians, and which sectors have what rights ?

The automatic, ipso facto, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel

But it did not say that did it, what it said was the inhabitants of the mandate for Palestine would become BRITISH Palestinian citizens, which is why the passports were British passports and not Palestinian ones.


Still you have not defined who are Palestinians and which rights are accorded to which sectors of the mandate for palestines inhabitants ?

Where do you keep getting these lies? Oh yeah, from Israel.
-------------------
With regard to nationality of the inhabitants of mandated territories, in general, the Council of the League of Nations adopted the following resolution on 23 April 1923:

“(1) The status of the native inhabitants of a Mandated territory is distinct from that of the nationals of the Mandatory Power....
(2) The native inhabitants of a Mandated territory are not invested with the nationality of the Mandatory Power by means of the protection extended to them…”92​

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel

 

[Hossfly]

Well, we may disagree on our interpretations,..​

Indeed, because you can't get your face out of Israeli propaganda.

For Britain when it changed from an occupation to a civil administration it was merely a name change. It kept its military there and in fact increased troop strength in the '30s to better trample on the Palestinian's inalienable rights.

Would that be the Jewish Palestinians as they were the only ones known by that name at that time

So true. Not a single Muslim Palestinian among the indigenous Palestinians. Want peace? Israel must find some way to convince the surrounding Arab countries to grant their Palestinian squatters a right of return back to their native homelands. LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!

First you have Stated before on this site,THERE WERE NO PALESTINIANS IN WHAT IS NOW ISRAEL(MORONIC I KNOW)........

Then you say.....return to their, the Palestinian NATIVE HOMELANDS.................You represent all that is wrong in Message Boards like these.

Just NOT GOOD ENOUGH........H.I.M theliq

As for my friend Hoss,agreeing with some of your comments,well you should stop plying Hoss with LIQ

Palestinians are, were, and will remain Egyptian, Syrian and Jordanian. No amount of name changing can change those facts, Steve.

 

[MJB12741]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Sovereignty and Independence --- the idea of self-determination, are all relatively new ideas over the last century; --- emerging within the last 100 years since the beginning of World War I. And none of this has to do with "land ownership." This topic is not about the title and deeds to the land --- but the leadership of the population over the land.

The character of every mandate differs according to the stage of the development of the people. Article 22, of the League of Nations Covenant, stipulates the principle and Key Test: wherein --- "independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.

In the last century, the remaining Hostile Arab Palestinians have never demonstrated that they could meet this test; that they could ever stand alone. Not in 1920s, not in the 1930s, not in the 1940s, not during Jordanian occupation, not during Israel security containment and not today as the State of Palestine within the territory occupied since 1967.

Who would those "legal" land owners be.

Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed any land.

(COMMENT)

The entire concepts of the Arab Palestinian is based on the continuing struggle to removed Israeli Independence and sovereignty from anywhere in the region and replace it with some Arab Dominance; something more advanced --- beyond that of the demonstrated leadership of an Arab Palestinian Failed State (having failed at some of the basic conditions and responsibilities of a sovereign government) exhibited in the last half century (even before the time of Israeli occupation). The Arab Palestinian, as represented today, is not capable of living in peace --- even with other Arabs. The attempt to assassinate the Jordanian King in the 1970's --- when Jordan was attempting to help the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) --- is an example of the basic capacity for peace. This was replicated in 2005 after the Israeli disengagement from Gaza. In fact, the current coalition government behind the Palestinians is based on the mantra of liberating Palestine, as a national duty, from the river to the sea, and from north to south. Whatever the impression that the HoAP may have given in terms of a two-state solution living side by side in peace, the actual agenda for the HoAP is the removal of Israeli sovereignty (recognition of "Israel" and the legitimacy of its presence on any part of Palestine). Even if Israeli Justice Minister Tzipi Livni come to the table with the long-term strategic goal leading to a two-state solution and an overall making an overall settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict, it cannot gain any traction if the ultimate objective of the Unity Government (HAMAS+Fatah) is the dismantlement of Israeli sovereignty.

As long as the HoAP have, in any numbers, a body within the population that believes that Israel needs to be expunged from the Middle East, the shadow casts by this demonstrated threat remains and requires containment.

Most Respectfully,
R

This topic is not about the title and deeds to the land --- but the leadership of the population over the land.​

Indeed, it is about who has the right to self determination, independence, and sovereignty.

That right belongs to the Palestinians as several UN resolutions state.

Then define what you mean by Palestinians, and which sectors have what rights ?

The automatic, ipso facto, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel

"Palestine" being the operative word here

OUTSTANDING POINT! And who said Theliq is an imbecile? Yes, Palestine, the Jewish homeland.

Mandate For Palestine - The Legal Aspects of Jewish Rights

 

[RoccoR]

theliq, et al,

You read, but you do not understand.

"Palestine" being the operative word here

(COMMENT)

The word "Palestine" means the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies.

The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine. - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - The Palestine Order in LoN Council - Mandatory order 10 August 1922
​

The rule is that everyone is entitled to citizenship; no one is stateless. In this case the citizenship was to the Mandate Territory.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[aris2chat]

theliq, et al,

You read, but you do not understand.

"Palestine" being the operative word here

(COMMENT)

The word "Palestine" means the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies.

The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine. - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - The Palestine Order in LoN Council - Mandatory order 10 August 1922
​

The rule is that everyone is entitled to citizenship; no one is stateless. In this case the citizenship was to the Mandate Territory.

Most Respectfully,
R

It has been explained and various sources given many times.
They don't want to listen. They prefer the lies and disinformation
Everyone is trying to give the palestinians some sort of state, except the hateful and those who breed violence.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OH Please.

​

-------------------
With regard to nationality of the inhabitants of mandated territories, in general, the Council of the League of Nations adopted the following resolution on 23 April 1923:

“(1) The status of the native inhabitants of a Mandated territory is distinct from that of the nationals of the Mandatory Power....
(2) The native inhabitants of a Mandated territory are not invested with the nationality of the Mandatory Power by means of the protection extended to them…”92​

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel

(COMMENT)

For the purposes of this Order and pending the introduction of an Order in Council regulating Palestinian citizenship, the following persons shall be deemed to be Palestinian citizens:--

(a)Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the date of commencement of this Order.

(b)All persons of other than Turkish nationality habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the said date, who shall within two calendar months of the said date make application for Palestinian citizenship in such form and before such officer as may be prescribed by the High Commissioner. - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - The Palestine Order in LoN Council - Mandatory order 10 August 1922
​

The phrase "nationality of the Mandatory Power" means the "nationality of Great Britain." Great Britain is the Mandatory Power.

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 12 August 1922 ​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Hossfly]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OH Please.

​

-------------------
With regard to nationality of the inhabitants of mandated territories, in general, the Council of the League of Nations adopted the following resolution on 23 April 1923:

“(1) The status of the native inhabitants of a Mandated territory is distinct from that of the nationals of the Mandatory Power....
(2) The native inhabitants of a Mandated territory are not invested with the nationality of the Mandatory Power by means of the protection extended to them…”92​

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel

(COMMENT)

For the purposes of this Order and pending the introduction of an Order in Council regulating Palestinian citizenship, the following persons shall be deemed to be Palestinian citizens:--

(a)Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the date of commencement of this Order.

(b)All persons of other than Turkish nationality habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the said date, who shall within two calendar months of the said date make application for Palestinian citizenship in such form and before such officer as may be prescribed by the High Commissioner. - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - The Palestine Order in LoN Council - Mandatory order 10 August 1922
​

The phrase "nationality of the Mandatory Power" means the "nationality of Great Britain." Great Britain is the Mandatory Power.

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 12 August 1922 ​

Most Respectfully,
R

RoccoR , if Tinmore would read and accept all your discourse on the Israel/Palestine situation, he could easily earn a PhD in mid-East affairs.

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OH Please.

​

-------------------
With regard to nationality of the inhabitants of mandated territories, in general, the Council of the League of Nations adopted the following resolution on 23 April 1923:

“(1) The status of the native inhabitants of a Mandated territory is distinct from that of the nationals of the Mandatory Power....
(2) The native inhabitants of a Mandated territory are not invested with the nationality of the Mandatory Power by means of the protection extended to them…”92​

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel

(COMMENT)

For the purposes of this Order and pending the introduction of an Order in Council regulating Palestinian citizenship, the following persons shall be deemed to be Palestinian citizens:--

(a)Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the date of commencement of this Order.

(b)All persons of other than Turkish nationality habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the said date, who shall within two calendar months of the said date make application for Palestinian citizenship in such form and before such officer as may be prescribed by the High Commissioner. - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - The Palestine Order in LoN Council - Mandatory order 10 August 1922
​

The phrase "nationality of the Mandatory Power" means the "nationality of Great Britain." Great Britain is the Mandatory Power.

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 12 August 1922 ​

Most Respectfully,
R

RoccoR , if Tinmore would read and accept all your discourse on the Israel/Palestine situation, he could easily earn a PhD in mid-East affairs.

Tinmore is allergic to the truth.

He does 't even consider Israel to be a country

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OH Please.

​

-------------------
With regard to nationality of the inhabitants of mandated territories, in general, the Council of the League of Nations adopted the following resolution on 23 April 1923:

“(1) The status of the native inhabitants of a Mandated territory is distinct from that of the nationals of the Mandatory Power....
(2) The native inhabitants of a Mandated territory are not invested with the nationality of the Mandatory Power by means of the protection extended to them…”92​

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel

(COMMENT)

For the purposes of this Order and pending the introduction of an Order in Council regulating Palestinian citizenship, the following persons shall be deemed to be Palestinian citizens:--

(a)Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the date of commencement of this Order.

(b)All persons of other than Turkish nationality habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the said date, who shall within two calendar months of the said date make application for Palestinian citizenship in such form and before such officer as may be prescribed by the High Commissioner. - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - The Palestine Order in LoN Council - Mandatory order 10 August 1922
​

The phrase "nationality of the Mandatory Power" means the "nationality of Great Britain." Great Britain is the Mandatory Power.

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 12 August 1922 ​

Most Respectfully,
R

The phrase "nationality of the Mandatory Power" means the "nationality of Great Britain." Great Britain is the Mandatory Power.

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 12 August 1922 ​

Uh, Rocco, neither of those two phrases that you have in quotes is in the link you posted.

Before 1924 Palestine was a part of Turkish sovereign territory occupied be the British. After 1924 Palestine was a "successor state" under the trust of the British Mandate for Palestine.

Two different sets of rules.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Sovereignty and Independence --- the idea of self-determination, are all relatively new ideas over the last century; --- emerging within the last 100 years since the beginning of World War I. And none of this has to do with "land ownership." This topic is not about the title and deeds to the land --- but the leadership of the population over the land.

The character of every mandate differs according to the stage of the development of the people. Article 22, of the League of Nations Covenant, stipulates the principle and Key Test: wherein --- "independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.

In the last century, the remaining Hostile Arab Palestinians have never demonstrated that they could meet this test; that they could ever stand alone. Not in 1920s, not in the 1930s, not in the 1940s, not during Jordanian occupation, not during Israel security containment and not today as the State of Palestine within the territory occupied since 1967.

(COMMENT)

The entire concepts of the Arab Palestinian is based on the continuing struggle to removed Israeli Independence and sovereignty from anywhere in the region and replace it with some Arab Dominance; something more advanced --- beyond that of the demonstrated leadership of an Arab Palestinian Failed State (having failed at some of the basic conditions and responsibilities of a sovereign government) exhibited in the last half century (even before the time of Israeli occupation). The Arab Palestinian, as represented today, is not capable of living in peace --- even with other Arabs. The attempt to assassinate the Jordanian King in the 1970's --- when Jordan was attempting to help the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) --- is an example of the basic capacity for peace. This was replicated in 2005 after the Israeli disengagement from Gaza. In fact, the current coalition government behind the Palestinians is based on the mantra of liberating Palestine, as a national duty, from the river to the sea, and from north to south. Whatever the impression that the HoAP may have given in terms of a two-state solution living side by side in peace, the actual agenda for the HoAP is the removal of Israeli sovereignty (recognition of "Israel" and the legitimacy of its presence on any part of Palestine). Even if Israeli Justice Minister Tzipi Livni come to the table with the long-term strategic goal leading to a two-state solution and an overall making an overall settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict, it cannot gain any traction if the ultimate objective of the Unity Government (HAMAS+Fatah) is the dismantlement of Israeli sovereignty.

As long as the HoAP have, in any numbers, a body within the population that believes that Israel needs to be expunged from the Middle East, the shadow casts by this demonstrated threat remains and requires containment.

Most Respectfully,
R

This topic is not about the title and deeds to the land --- but the leadership of the population over the land.​

Indeed, it is about who has the right to self determination, independence, and sovereignty.

That right belongs to the Palestinians as several UN resolutions state.

Then define what you mean by Palestinians, and which sectors have what rights ?

The automatic, ipso facto, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel

But it did not say that did it, what it said was the inhabitants of the mandate for Palestine would become BRITISH Palestinian citizens, which is why the passports were British passports and not Palestinian ones.


Still you have not defined who are Palestinians and which rights are accorded to which sectors of the mandate for palestines inhabitants ?

Where do you keep getting these lies? Oh yeah, from Israel.
-------------------
With regard to nationality of the inhabitants of mandated territories, in general, the Council of the League of Nations adopted the following resolution on 23 April 1923:

“(1) The status of the native inhabitants of a Mandated territory is distinct from that of the nationals of the Mandatory Power....
(2) The native inhabitants of a Mandated territory are not invested with the nationality of the Mandatory Power by means of the protection extended to them…”92​

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel

Keep trying as the truth is the citizens of the Mandate for Palestine to give it its full title did not have any nation or state other than the Mandate. This meant that the British took on the task of providing them with passports and travel documents. This is why the passports showed British Palestine.

But you still have not defined who are Palestinians and which rights are accorded to which sectors of the Mandate for Palestine's inhabitants

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OH Please.

​

-------------------
With regard to nationality of the inhabitants of mandated territories, in general, the Council of the League of Nations adopted the following resolution on 23 April 1923:

“(1) The status of the native inhabitants of a Mandated territory is distinct from that of the nationals of the Mandatory Power....
(2) The native inhabitants of a Mandated territory are not invested with the nationality of the Mandatory Power by means of the protection extended to them…”92​

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel

(COMMENT)

For the purposes of this Order and pending the introduction of an Order in Council regulating Palestinian citizenship, the following persons shall be deemed to be Palestinian citizens:--

(a)Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the date of commencement of this Order.

(b)All persons of other than Turkish nationality habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the said date, who shall within two calendar months of the said date make application for Palestinian citizenship in such form and before such officer as may be prescribed by the High Commissioner. - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - The Palestine Order in LoN Council - Mandatory order 10 August 1922
​

The phrase "nationality of the Mandatory Power" means the "nationality of Great Britain." Great Britain is the Mandatory Power.

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 12 August 1922 ​

Most Respectfully,
R

The phrase "nationality of the Mandatory Power" means the "nationality of Great Britain." Great Britain is the Mandatory Power.

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 12 August 1922 ​

Uh, Rocco, neither of those two phrases that you have in quotes is in the link you posted.

Before 1924 Palestine was a part of Turkish sovereign territory occupied be the British. After 1924 Palestine was a "successor state" under the trust of the British Mandate for Palestine.

Two different sets of rules.

Wrong again by at least 6 years as the British defeated the Ottoman empire in 1918 and the terms of surrender were agreed and signed. The treaty was signed by the Ottoman empire and the LoN, if it was a successor state then who was its leader, what was its capital, what was its currency and who was responsible for its foreign affairs and travel documents. At no time was it ever Turkish sovereign territory.........................

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't know what you are talking about. I just went to the links.

The phrase "nationality of the Mandatory Power" means the "nationality of Great Britain." Great Britain is the Mandatory Power.

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 12 August 1922 ​

Uh, Rocco, neither of those two phrases that you have in quotes is in the link you posted.

Before 1924 Palestine was a part of Turkish sovereign territory occupied be the British. After 1924 Palestine was a "successor state" under the trust of the British Mandate for Palestine.

Two different sets of rules.

(COMMENT)

The first one is my language, the second one with the link is a cut'n'paste (used as the source).

This is incorrect as well: "Before 1924 Palestine was a part of Turkish sovereign territory occupied be the British. After 1924 Palestine was a "successor state" under the trust of the British Mandate for Palestine."

The Allied Forces occupied "Ottoman Empire Territory" and accepted the surrender from the "Ottoman Empire." There was a War of Independence (May 19, 1919 – July 24, 1923) in Turkey (Mustafa Kemal Atatürk led the Turkish National Movement in the Turkish War of Independence) in which the Ottoman Empire was replace by the new Turkish Government (Turkish National Movement). The Armistice of Mudros (1918) and the Treaty of Sèvres (1920) were the instruments used by the Allied Powers to accept the surrender of the various territories from the Ottoman Empire. Then when the Turkish National Movement assumed power, the Treaty of Lausanne (1924) was the instrument that was used by the Turkish Government (successor to the Ottoman Empire) to renounce external territory occupied by Allied Forces.

The TIMELINE:

• In 1918, The Armistice of Mudros, the Ottomans surrendered their remaining garrisons and all Ottoman Forces in the Hejaz, Yemen, Syria (which contained Palestine), Mesopotamia, Tripolitania, and Cyrenaica.
• Between 1918 and 1920, the British established a military occupation of the territory under the sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire.
• In 1919, the League of Nations Covenant signed, and Article 22 criteria established and the authority of a Mandate recognized.
• In 1920, the San Remo Convention established the framework for the Mandate and decide to establish a Jewish National Home.
• In 1920, by order of His Majesty, a Civil Administration was established to replace the military occupation of the territory under the sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire.
• In 1922, The Order in Council (first) and then the Mandate (second) of Palestine are created.
• In 1923, Turkish Nationalist assume power, the Sultanate abolished, the Caliph exiled, the decision to abandon the Treaty of Sèvres was made.
• In 1923, Treaty of Lausanna --- The Turkish successor government to the Ottoman Empire renounces all claims to Arab territories previously surrendered by the Ottoman Empire.
• In 1924, the Treaty of Lausanne 6 August 1924 become effective.

Prior to 24 July, 1923, there was no such thing as the Republic of Turkey. The Republic of Turkey never had control or extended sovereignty over any of the Arab Provinces. The Allied Powers (British and French) accepted the surrender and occupied the territories from the Ottoman Empire. At no time did Allied Forces occupy any sovereign territory of the Republic of Turkey which came into existence in 1923.

In Palestine, the territories to which the Mandate applied, the successor government to Ottoman control was the British Civil Administration. Nothing was put in trust for the anyone. Nothing changed in 1924. The key feature of the Treaty of Lausanne, besides the establishment of borders, was the renouncement of claims. Included in Part I ---Article 3(1) of the Treaty was the understanding that Syria is outside the borders of Turkey; and that:

ARTICLE 16.

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.
​

Other than the Mandate for Palestine, there was no successor state announce. Palestine was delineated in Part I (Preliminary) --- Paragraph 1 (Title) that:

Title.1. This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."
The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.
- See more at: Mandate for Palestine - The Palestine Order in LoN Council - Mandatory order 10 August 1922 ​

The idea that the Mandate System (described at length in VI.A. MANDATES 1945. VI.A. 1), is a trusteeship wherein Palestine is palced in trust for someone is entirely wrong.

The Palestine Mandate is of a very special character. While it follows the main lines laid down by the Covenant for "A" Mandates, it also contains a number of provisions designed to apply the policy defined by the "Balfour Declaration" of November 2nd, 1917. By this declaration, the British Government had announced its intention to encourage the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country. The Mandate reproduces the Balfour Declaration almost in full in its preamble and states that "recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country".​

Accordingly, under the terms of the Mandate, the Mandatory is to be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion. The Mandate also provides for the recognition as a public body of a Jewish agency which is to advise and co-operate with the administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration, to assist and take part in the development of the country. At first and in accordance with the terms of the Mandate, this role was entrusted to the Zionist Organisation; later, however, from 1929 onwards, that organisation was replaced by the "Jewish Agency for Palestine", which includes representatives not only of the Zionist Organisation but also of other Jewish bodies in various countries. In consultation with the Mandatory, this agency takes steps to secure the co-operation of all Jews willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home. While ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, the Administration, for its part, must facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and, in co-operation with the Jewish agency, encourage close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes. A nationality law is to be enacted containing provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.​

There is little question that the Mandatory was entrusted with a great responsibility; but a trusteeship (as in the UN Charter) is not the same as the LoN Mandate System. In fact, in the entire manual on the Mandate System, the word trust is only used three times: (The word "trustee or trusteeship" or any variation is not used at all.)

"1. To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.​

But this has nothing to do with putting the government, the territory, or the people in a "trust" situation; wherein League of Nations transfers some or all of the Mandate to a trustee. The trustee (the UK) holds that property for the trust's beneficiaries (Palestinians). Nowhere is that scenario described. But included is the criteria that: "administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone." There has never been a time when the Palestinian was considered able to "stand alone."

In fact, The Trusteeship Council suspended operation on 1 November 1994, when the last remaining United Nations trust territory, became independent.

Most Respectfully,
R