Who Are The Palestinians?

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I can't believe you asked this. I've posted these links at least a hundred times.

You are making things up. Nothing you said had any merit with these issues. The Palestinian declaration in 1948 was not valid and they did NOT have any defined territory.
The declaration clearly says that they were declaring all of the region as their own, 4 months AFTER Israel declared independence on the land allotted to her in resolution 181.
Obviously you're not happy with this outcome, but these were.
Remember, the Palestinians used 181 as a legal basis in to declare independence in 1988 too.

Link?

(REFERENCE)

A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988 ANNEX III Declaration of Independence

Despite the historical injustice done to the Palestinian Arab people in its displacement and in being deprived of the right to self-determination following the adoption of General Assembly resolution 181 (II) of 1947, which partitioned Palestine into an Arab and a Jewish State, that resolution nevertheless continues to attach conditions to international legitimacy that guarantee the Palestinian Arab people the right to sovereignty and national independence.

By virtue of the natural, historical and legal right of the Palestinian Arab people to its homeland, Palestine, and of the sacrifices of its succeeding generations in defence of the freedom and independence of that homeland,

Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947, and

Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:

The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.
​

A/53/879 S/1999/334 25 March 1999 Letter dated 25 March 1999 from the Permanent Observer of Palestine

For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a corpus separatum, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II), as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I can't believe you asked this. I've posted these links at least a hundred times.

You are making things up. Nothing you said had any merit with these issues. The Palestinian declaration in 1948 was not valid and they did NOT have any defined territory.
The declaration clearly says that they were declaring all of the region as their own, 4 months AFTER Israel declared independence on the land allotted to her in resolution 181.
Obviously you're not happy with this outcome, but these were.
Remember, the Palestinians used 181 as a legal basis in to declare independence in 1988 too.

Link?

(REFERENCE)

A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988 ANNEX III Declaration of Independence

Despite the historical injustice done to the Palestinian Arab people in its displacement and in being deprived of the right to self-determination following the adoption of General Assembly resolution 181 (II) of 1947, which partitioned Palestine into an Arab and a Jewish State, that resolution nevertheless continues to attach conditions to international legitimacy that guarantee the Palestinian Arab people the right to sovereignty and national independence.

By virtue of the natural, historical and legal right of the Palestinian Arab people to its homeland, Palestine, and of the sacrifices of its succeeding generations in defence of the freedom and independence of that homeland,

Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947, and

Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:

The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.
​

A/53/879 S/1999/334 25 March 1999 Letter dated 25 March 1999 from the Permanent Observer of Palestine

For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a corpus separatum, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II), as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

How does that relate to my post?

 

[Hossfly]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I can't believe you asked this. I've posted these links at least a hundred times.

You are making things up. Nothing you said had any merit with these issues. The Palestinian declaration in 1948 was not valid and they did NOT have any defined territory.
The declaration clearly says that they were declaring all of the region as their own, 4 months AFTER Israel declared independence on the land allotted to her in resolution 181.
Obviously you're not happy with this outcome, but these were.
Remember, the Palestinians used 181 as a legal basis in to declare independence in 1988 too.

Link?

(REFERENCE)

A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988 ANNEX III Declaration of Independence

Despite the historical injustice done to the Palestinian Arab people in its displacement and in being deprived of the right to self-determination following the adoption of General Assembly resolution 181 (II) of 1947, which partitioned Palestine into an Arab and a Jewish State, that resolution nevertheless continues to attach conditions to international legitimacy that guarantee the Palestinian Arab people the right to sovereignty and national independence.

By virtue of the natural, historical and legal right of the Palestinian Arab people to its homeland, Palestine, and of the sacrifices of its succeeding generations in defence of the freedom and independence of that homeland,

Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947, and

Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:

The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.
​

A/53/879 S/1999/334 25 March 1999 Letter dated 25 March 1999 from the Permanent Observer of Palestine

For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a corpus separatum, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II), as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

How does that relate to my post?

Go back and read your inaccurate post then read Rocco's response. Maybe you'll get a clue.

 

[MJB12741]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I can't believe you asked this. I've posted these links at least a hundred times.

You are making things up. Nothing you said had any merit with these issues. The Palestinian declaration in 1948 was not valid and they did NOT have any defined territory.
The declaration clearly says that they were declaring all of the region as their own, 4 months AFTER Israel declared independence on the land allotted to her in resolution 181.
Obviously you're not happy with this outcome, but these were.
Remember, the Palestinians used 181 as a legal basis in to declare independence in 1988 too.

Link?

(REFERENCE)

A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988 ANNEX III Declaration of Independence

Despite the historical injustice done to the Palestinian Arab people in its displacement and in being deprived of the right to self-determination following the adoption of General Assembly resolution 181 (II) of 1947, which partitioned Palestine into an Arab and a Jewish State, that resolution nevertheless continues to attach conditions to international legitimacy that guarantee the Palestinian Arab people the right to sovereignty and national independence.

By virtue of the natural, historical and legal right of the Palestinian Arab people to its homeland, Palestine, and of the sacrifices of its succeeding generations in defence of the freedom and independence of that homeland,

Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947, and

Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:

The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.
​

A/53/879 S/1999/334 25 March 1999 Letter dated 25 March 1999 from the Permanent Observer of Palestine

For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a corpus separatum, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II), as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

How does that relate to my post?

Go back and read your inaccurate post then read Rocco's response. Maybe you'll get a clue.

Poor Tinmore. He just doesn't get it. Israel accepted UN resolution 181. THE ARABS RFEJECTED IT! What a major blow that was for their Palestinians.

UN Resolution 181 - The Partition Plan

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I can't believe you asked this. I've posted these links at least a hundred times.

You are making things up. Nothing you said had any merit with these issues. The Palestinian declaration in 1948 was not valid and they did NOT have any defined territory.
The declaration clearly says that they were declaring all of the region as their own, 4 months AFTER Israel declared independence on the land allotted to her in resolution 181.
Obviously you're not happy with this outcome, but these were.
Remember, the Palestinians used 181 as a legal basis in to declare independence in 1988 too.

Link?

(REFERENCE)

A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988 ANNEX III Declaration of Independence

Despite the historical injustice done to the Palestinian Arab people in its displacement and in being deprived of the right to self-determination following the adoption of General Assembly resolution 181 (II) of 1947, which partitioned Palestine into an Arab and a Jewish State, that resolution nevertheless continues to attach conditions to international legitimacy that guarantee the Palestinian Arab people the right to sovereignty and national independence.

By virtue of the natural, historical and legal right of the Palestinian Arab people to its homeland, Palestine, and of the sacrifices of its succeeding generations in defence of the freedom and independence of that homeland,

Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947, and

Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:

The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.
​

A/53/879 S/1999/334 25 March 1999 Letter dated 25 March 1999 from the Permanent Observer of Palestine

For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a corpus separatum, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II), as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

How does that relate to my post?

You keep saying that resolution 181 is irrelevant, but Rocco's post clearly proved that the Palestinians themselves used it to declare independence in 1988.
Why you continue spreading the same 'resolution 181 means nothing' lie is beyond me.

 

[MJB12741]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I can't believe you asked this. I've posted these links at least a hundred times.

You are making things up. Nothing you said had any merit with these issues. The Palestinian declaration in 1948 was not valid and they did NOT have any defined territory.
The declaration clearly says that they were declaring all of the region as their own, 4 months AFTER Israel declared independence on the land allotted to her in resolution 181.
Obviously you're not happy with this outcome, but these were.
Remember, the Palestinians used 181 as a legal basis in to declare independence in 1988 too.

Link?

(REFERENCE)

A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988 ANNEX III Declaration of Independence

Despite the historical injustice done to the Palestinian Arab people in its displacement and in being deprived of the right to self-determination following the adoption of General Assembly resolution 181 (II) of 1947, which partitioned Palestine into an Arab and a Jewish State, that resolution nevertheless continues to attach conditions to international legitimacy that guarantee the Palestinian Arab people the right to sovereignty and national independence.

By virtue of the natural, historical and legal right of the Palestinian Arab people to its homeland, Palestine, and of the sacrifices of its succeeding generations in defence of the freedom and independence of that homeland,

Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947, and

Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:

The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.
​

A/53/879 S/1999/334 25 March 1999 Letter dated 25 March 1999 from the Permanent Observer of Palestine

For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a corpus separatum, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II), as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

How does that relate to my post?

You keep saying that resolution 181 is irrelevant, but Rocco's post clearly proved that the Palestinians themselves used it to declare independence in 1988.
Why you continue spreading the same 'resolution 181 means nothing' lie is beyond me.

I really think Tinmore is actually sincere in his comments. Problem is he thinks with a Palestinian mentality.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, yes, this again.

Israel never had any intention of abiding by Resolution 181. It merely threw it in there to pretend to have lagitimacy.

What is your recommendation, Tinmore?

Good question and since Resolution 181 was never implemented it was a dubious move for Israel to hang its hat on that resolution for legitimacy.

(COMMENT)

• • Recalling its resolutions of 29 November 1947 3/ and 11 December 1948 4/ and taking note of the declarations and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel 5/ before the ad hoc Political Committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions, [See: Resolution 273 (III). Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations, 11 May 1949]
  • The Commission has not been dissolved. In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented." [PAL/169 17 May 1948]

Often evidentiary UN remarks are challenged by the pro-Palestinian. They believe that if they say it enough, the UN will reverse its position.

And because the of the legitimacy and importance of the Resolution, it is cited quite frequently, by the Palestinians and the UN.

Palestinians:

• Declaration of Independence, 1988
• Letter dated 25 March 1999 from the Permanent Observer of Palestine

The UN:

• A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988 43/177. Question of Palestine
• A/67/L.28 26 November 2012 Question of Palestine
• A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012 67/19. Status of Palestine in the United Nations

Most Respectfully,
R

You keep posting the same thing, but:

When did those proposed borders become international borders?

Where is that international city of Jerusalem?

Where are the full civil and political rights guaranteed to the non Jewish citizens?

Speaking of citizens, this part of Resolution 181 also didn't happen.

...Palestinian citizens residing in Palestine...shall, upon the recognition of independence, become citizens of the State in which they are resident and enjoy full civil and political rights.​

This reflects international law.

In international law, when a state is dissolved and new states are established, “the population follows the change of sovereignty in matters of nationality.”5 As a rule, therefore, citizens of the former state should automatically acquire the nationality of the successor state in which they had already been residing.​

Palestinians who resided in the territory that became Israel became Israeli citizens. This includes the refugees who normally lived in that territory. Obviously Israel wants to duck that part.

 

[aris2chat]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, yes, this again.

Israel never had any intention of abiding by Resolution 181. It merely threw it in there to pretend to have lagitimacy.

What is your recommendation, Tinmore?

Good question and since Resolution 181 was never implemented it was a dubious move for Israel to hang its hat on that resolution for legitimacy.

(COMMENT)

• • Recalling its resolutions of 29 November 1947 3/ and 11 December 1948 4/ and taking note of the declarations and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel 5/ before the ad hoc Political Committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions, [See: Resolution 273 (III). Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations, 11 May 1949]
  • The Commission has not been dissolved. In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented." [PAL/169 17 May 1948]

Often evidentiary UN remarks are challenged by the pro-Palestinian. They believe that if they say it enough, the UN will reverse its position.

And because the of the legitimacy and importance of the Resolution, it is cited quite frequently, by the Palestinians and the UN.

Palestinians:

• Declaration of Independence, 1988
• Letter dated 25 March 1999 from the Permanent Observer of Palestine

The UN:

• A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988 43/177. Question of Palestine
• A/67/L.28 26 November 2012 Question of Palestine
• A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012 67/19. Status of Palestine in the United Nations

Most Respectfully,
R

You keep posting the same thing, but:

When did those proposed borders become international borders?

Where is that international city of Jerusalem?

Where are the full civil and political rights guaranteed to the non Jewish citizens?

Speaking of citizens, this part of Resolution 181 also didn't happen.

...Palestinian citizens residing in Palestine...shall, upon the recognition of independence, become citizens of the State in which they are resident and enjoy full civil and political rights.​

This reflects international law.

In international law, when a state is dissolved and new states are established, “the population follows the change of sovereignty in matters of nationality.”5 As a rule, therefore, citizens of the former state should automatically acquire the nationality of the successor state in which they had already been residing.​

Palestinians who resided in the territory that became Israel became Israeli citizens. This includes the refugees who normally lived in that territory. Obviously Israel wants to duck that part.

and you keep repeating the same whine

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, your unyielding position, even in the face of documentation, is noted.

You keep posting the same thing, but:

(COMMENT)

Because that is the record.

When did those proposed borders become international borders?

(COMMENT)

The southern and eastern borders are a matter of record within the Treaties between Egypt (Article II) and Jordan (Article III), respectively. The much smaller remainder is still under Armistice with Lebanon and Syria; the "Blue Line" being the demarcation between Lebanon and Israel.

The foreign interference of the Arab League military forces prevented the complete and total implementation of the Resolution 181(II).

Where is that international city of Jerusalem?

(COMMENT)

Granted --- This is a territorial dispute; having both the State of Israel and the State of Palestine claiming Jerusalem as their respective capitols.

Where are the full civil and political rights guaranteed to the non Jewish citizens?

(COMMENT)

Israel has full civil and political rights guaranteed to the non Jewish citizens.

Speaking of citizens, this part of Resolution 181 also didn't happen.

...Palestinian citizens residing in Palestine...shall, upon the recognition of independence, become citizens of the State in which they are resident and enjoy full civil and political rights.​

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinians are, in fact, citizens of the State of Palestine.

This reflects international law.

In international law, when a state is dissolved and new states are established, “the population follows the change of sovereignty in matters of nationality.”5 As a rule, therefore, citizens of the former state should automatically acquire the nationality of the successor state in which they had already been residing.​

(COMMENT)

I think you are misinterpreting this "explanation" in law (just a thought as a layman). The application is this:

• Arab Palestinians in place on 15 May 1948 are Israeli Citizens.
• Arab Palestinians not in place on 15 May 1948 are NOT Israeli Citizens.
• Arab Palestinians that assume citizenship elsewhere are NOT Israeli Citizens and are not refugees.

The applicable International Law is:

Article I --- C. This Convention shall cease to apply to any person falling under the terms of section A if:

(1) He has voluntarily re-availed himself of the protection of the country of his nationality; or​

(2) Having lost his nationality, he has voluntarily re-acquired it; or

(3) He has acquired a new nationality, and enjoys the protection of the country of his new nationality; or​

There are NO refugees in either the West Bank or Gaza Strip, having "acquired a new nationality, and enjoys the protection of the country of his new nationality" --- the State of Palestine.

Having said that, this does not preclude Arab Palestinian property owners from establishing a claim and seeking restitution for property lost in the refugee movement. This is a civil tort issue.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Hossfly]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, your unyielding position, even in the face of documentation, is noted.

You keep posting the same thing, but:

(COMMENT)

Because that is the record.

When did those proposed borders become international borders?

(COMMENT)

The southern and eastern borders are a matter of record within the Treaties between Egypt (Article II) and Jordan (Article III), respectively. The much smaller remainder is still under Armistice with Lebanon and Syria; the "Blue Line" being the demarcation between Lebanon and Israel.

Where is that international city of Jerusalem?

(COMMENT)

Granted --- This is a territorial dispute; having both the State of Israel and the State of Palestine claiming Jerusalem as their respective capitols.

Where are the full civil and political rights guaranteed to the non Jewish citizens?

(COMMENT)

Israel has full civil and political rights guaranteed to the non Jewish citizens.

Speaking of citizens, this part of Resolution 181 also didn't happen.

...Palestinian citizens residing in Palestine...shall, upon the recognition of independence, become citizens of the State in which they are resident and enjoy full civil and political rights.​

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinians are, in fact, citizens of the State of Palestine.

This reflects international law.

In international law, when a state is dissolved and new states are established, “the population follows the change of sovereignty in matters of nationality.”5 As a rule, therefore, citizens of the former state should automatically acquire the nationality of the successor state in which they had already been residing.​

(COMMENT)

I think you are misinterpreting this "explanation" in law (just a thought as a layman). The application is this:

• Arab Palestinians in place on 15 May 1948 are Israeli Citizens.
• Arab Palestinians not in place on 15 May 1948 are NOT Israeli Citizens.
• Arab Palestinians that assume citizenship elsewhere are NOT Israeli Citizens and are not refugees.

The applicable International Law is:

Article I --- C. This Convention shall cease to apply to any person falling under the terms of section A if:

(1) He has voluntarily re-availed himself of the protection of the country of his nationality; or​

(2) Having lost his nationality, he has voluntarily re-acquired it; or

(3) He has acquired a new nationality, and enjoys the protection of the country of his new nationality; or

There are NO refugees in either the West Bank or Gaza Strip, having "acquired a new nationality, and enjoys the protection of the country of his new nationality" --- the State of Palestine.

Having said that, this does not preclude Arab Palestinian property owners from establishing a claim and seeking restitution for property lost in the refugee movement. This is a civil tort issue.

Most Respectfully,
R

I am led to believe that Tinmore has no idea about the subjects he brings up and is just talking to feel the wind whistle through his ears.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Arab Palestinians not in place on 15 May 1948 are NOT Israeli Citizens.

That is not what the law says. The Palestinians who's residence was inside what became Israel automatically became Israelis.

Being temporarily away from home does not change their place of residence.

III.

8.

• 
  a. In all cases of State succession, the successor State shall grant its nationality to all nationals of the predecessor State residing permanently on the transferred territory.
  
  b. Such nationality shall be granted without any discrimination in particular on the basis of ethnic origin, colour, religion, language or political opinions.
  
  c. Those persons to whom this nationality has been granted shall enjoy perfect equality of treatment with the other nationals of the successor State.

• 
  http://legislationline.org/documents/action/popup/id/7960
  
  However, there is a different view.
  
  
  In occupied territories
  The mass naturalization of native persons in occupied territories is illegal under the laws of war (Hague and Geneva Conventions)​
  Naturalization - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
  
  So, if Israel is the successor state the Palestinians became Israelis.
  
  If Israel occupies Palestine, (history points to this scenario) then the Palestinians are still Palestinians. It is illegal for the occupying power to exile natives from occupied territory.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

An opposing view.

Arab Palestinians not in place on 15 May 1948 are NOT Israeli Citizens.

That is not what the law says. The Palestinians who's residence was inside what became Israel automatically became Israelis.

Being temporarily away from home does not change their place of residence.

III.

8.

• 
  a. In all cases of State succession, the successor State shall grant its nationality to all nationals of the predecessor State residing permanently on the transferred territory.
  
  b. Such nationality shall be granted without any discrimination in particular on the basis of ethnic origin, colour, religion, language or political opinions.
  
  c. Those persons to whom this nationality has been granted shall enjoy perfect equality of treatment with the other nationals of the successor State.

• 
  http://legislationline.org/documents/action/popup/id/7960
  
  However, there is a different view.
  
  
  In occupied territories
  The mass naturalization of native persons in occupied territories is illegal under the laws of war (Hague and Geneva Conventions)​
  Naturalization - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
  
  So, if Israel is the successor state the Palestinians became Israelis.
  
  If Israel occupies Palestine, (history points to this scenario) then the Palestinians are still Palestinians. It is illegal for the occupying power to exile natives from occupied territory.

(COMMENT)

The "Declaration on the Consequences of State Succession for Nationality of Natural Persons" as adopted by the European Commission for Democracy through Law at its 28th Plenary Meeting, Venice, 13-14 September 1996, is NOT international law applicable to the Middle East (Israeli-Palestinian Conflict).

• The "Successor Government" at the time of termination of the Mandate was the UN Palestine Commission;
• There were no permanent residents of the transferred (Mandate) territory who become stateless as a result of the succession;
• The Independence of the State of Israel did not constitute an "Occupation" over the new sovereign territory;

It is also important (very important) to note that the Declaration on the Consequences states that "12. The predecessor State shall not withdraw its nationality from its own nationals who have been unable to acquire the nationality of a successor State." The Arab Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza Strip are all "Citizens of the State of Palestine" as recognized by the UN (in 1988 and reaffirmed in 2012). There are no stateless people in the State of Palestine, and the State of Palestine cannot withdraw its nationality of those citizens. All Arab Palestinians were able "to acquire" nationality in 1988 on the establishment of the Independent State of Palestine.

It is a moot point on an an irrelevant question, being a matter of no importance. Anyone inside the West Bank or Gaza Strip in 1988 was, on declaration of the PLO, a citizen of their new state. It was a consequence of exercising their "right of self-determination."

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

The "Declaration on the Consequences of State Succession for Nationality of Natural Persons" as adopted by the European Commission for Democracy through Law at its 28th Plenary Meeting, Venice, 13-14 September 1996, is NOT international law applicable to the Middle East (Israeli-Palestinian Conflict).

Not true. The law on the succession of states ha been around since the LoN.

In international law, when a state is dissolved and new states are established, “the population follows the change of sovereignty in matters of nationality.”5 As a rule, therefore, citizens of the former state should automatically acquire the nationality of the successor state in which they had already been residing.​

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel

You are just looking for excuses.

Try again.

 

[docmauser1]

The "Declaration on the Consequences of State Succession for Nationality of Natural Persons" as adopted by the European Commission for Democracy through Law at its 28th Plenary Meeting, Venice, 13-14 September 1996, is NOT international law applicable to the Middle East (Israeli-Palestinian Conflict).

Not true. The law on the succession of states ha been around since the LoN.

In international law, when a state is dissolved and new states are established, “the population follows the change of sovereignty in matters of nationality.”5 As a rule, therefore, citizens of the former state should automatically acquire the nationality of the successor state in which they had already been residing.​

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel You are just looking for excuses. Try again.

Yeah! Let's try again! So, who was that shakh, sheikh, emir, pasha, sultan, prime-minister, president of that "previous state"?

 

[aris2chat]

The "Declaration on the Consequences of State Succession for Nationality of Natural Persons" as adopted by the European Commission for Democracy through Law at its 28th Plenary Meeting, Venice, 13-14 September 1996, is NOT international law applicable to the Middle East (Israeli-Palestinian Conflict).

Not true. The law on the succession of states ha been around since the LoN.

In international law, when a state is dissolved and new states are established, “the population follows the change of sovereignty in matters of nationality.”5 As a rule, therefore, citizens of the former state should automatically acquire the nationality of the successor state in which they had already been residing.​

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel

You are just looking for excuses.

Try again.

Arabs that stayed in Israel became Israelis. There was no palestinian state but arabs who left or moved to WB or G that had lived and worked in the mandate were given the designation as palestinians. Jordan was the only state to offer the palestinians in the WB or Jordan a passport, but Arafat attempted a coup. Tens of thousands were killed and Fatah and other fighters were expelled.
Lebanon at one point offered a partial citizenship so they could live and work away from the camps, it was later revoked.

Palestinians have not been good guests in host countries. The arab world have treated the palestinians well, or tried to incorporate them into their own countries. They force them to remain dependents of the UN camps. A simmering crock pot.
PA has not dismantled the camps within the WB or G. PA remains a welfare state dependent on billions in donations from the rest of world. They could have developed their "to be" state and sought out investors and create jobs. So much has been wasted and they want billions more.

Hamas is building more tunnels and testing new rockets out to sea. This is not acting on behalf of the civilians under their authority.

 

[Phoenall]

et al,

I think that Lamis Deek of Al-Awda-NY is one of those make believe Palestinians that just want to continue the advocation of struggle, and such the dismantlement (destruction) of Israel.

This is not an advocate for peace.

Most Respectfully,
R

Israel's version of peace is all of Palestine without the Palestinians. This has been their goal for a hundred years.

Any Palestinian who disagrees with Israel's version is not an advocate for peace.

Just to show you how stupid this woman is, she says that the partition plan never went to the security council for approval and therefore Israel is illegal. Well then so is Palestine, because they used resolution 181 in 1988 as a basis to declare independence, just like Israel did.

Whoops !

She is not stupid. The Security Council never implemented Resolution 181. I have been saying that for years. It doesn't matter how much verbosity Rocco throws at it, it is true. It did not happen.

As far as the 1988 declaration being illegal, good point. It does have some related issues. However, there is still Palestine's 1948 declaration that does not mention Resolution 181.

You are completely deflecting again. Did you read the link I posted? The Palestinians used 181 to declare independence in 1988. There was no valid declaration of independence in 1948. You can't declare independence twice and have both of them be valid. I've done searches online for Palestinian declaration of independence and nothing about 1948 come up.

What was different that one declaration would be valid and the other not?

Simple once one party had declared independence and it was accepted the other party could not come along and usurp that declaration by declaring independence on land already claimed.

 

[Phoenall]

Just to show you how stupid this woman is, she says that the partition plan never went to the security council for approval and therefore Israel is illegal. Well then so is Palestine, because they used resolution 181 in 1988 as a basis to declare independence, just like Israel did.

Whoops !

She is not stupid. The Security Council never implemented Resolution 181. I have been saying that for years. It doesn't matter how much verbosity Rocco throws at it, it is true. It did not happen.

As far as the 1988 declaration being illegal, good point. It does have some related issues. However, there is still Palestine's 1948 declaration that does not mention Resolution 181.

You are completely deflecting again. Did you read the link I posted? The Palestinians used 181 to declare independence in 1988. There was no valid declaration of independence in 1948. You can't declare independence twice and have both of them be valid. I've done searches online for Palestinian declaration of independence and nothing about 1948 come up.

What was different that one declaration would be valid and the other not?

It's common sense. If a country declared independence twice, then it's obvious that the first one didn't work out since thet needed to do it again.

In the case of the Palestinians, they tried to declare independence on land that Israel had declared independence a few weeks (or months earlier).
Obviously if that declaration was valid,they would not have done it again in 1988

That is a common Fallacy.

Post a 1948 map of Israel showing what Israeli territory was claimed by the Palestinian's 1948 declaration.

Cant you do this to bolster your claim, or wil this show that Palestine tried to declare on land already accepted as Israel

 

[P F Tinmore]

She is not stupid. The Security Council never implemented Resolution 181. I have been saying that for years. It doesn't matter how much verbosity Rocco throws at it, it is true. It did not happen.

As far as the 1988 declaration being illegal, good point. It does have some related issues. However, there is still Palestine's 1948 declaration that does not mention Resolution 181.

You are completely deflecting again. Did you read the link I posted? The Palestinians used 181 to declare independence in 1988. There was no valid declaration of independence in 1948. You can't declare independence twice and have both of them be valid. I've done searches online for Palestinian declaration of independence and nothing about 1948 come up.

What was different that one declaration would be valid and the other not?

It's common sense. If a country declared independence twice, then it's obvious that the first one didn't work out since thet needed to do it again.

In the case of the Palestinians, they tried to declare independence on land that Israel had declared independence a few weeks (or months earlier).
Obviously if that declaration was valid,they would not have done it again in 1988

That is a common Fallacy.

Post a 1948 map of Israel showing what Israeli territory was claimed by the Palestinian's 1948 declaration.

Cant you do this to bolster your claim, or wil this show that Palestine tried to declare on land already accepted as Israel

You are ducking the question.

What land did the Palestinians claim that already belonged to Israel?

 

[Phoenall]

You are completely deflecting again. Did you read the link I posted? The Palestinians used 181 to declare independence in 1988. There was no valid declaration of independence in 1948. You can't declare independence twice and have both of them be valid. I've done searches online for Palestinian declaration of independence and nothing about 1948 come up.

What was different that one declaration would be valid and the other not?

It's common sense. If a country declared independence twice, then it's obvious that the first one didn't work out since thet needed to do it again.

In the case of the Palestinians, they tried to declare independence on land that Israel had declared independence a few weeks (or months earlier).
Obviously if that declaration was valid,they would not have done it again in 1988

That is a common Fallacy.

Post a 1948 map of Israel showing what Israeli territory was claimed by the Palestinian's 1948 declaration.

You're playing this stupid game again Tinmore

Israel declared independence on the land allotted to it in the partition plan.

The Palestinians tried to declare independence on that land (and more) AFTER Israel did so. Why you have a hard time accepting this fact is beyond me.

No it didn't. Remember, Resolution 181 did not happen.

Israel never claimed those proposed borders and nobody has ever recognized them.

Meaning that the parties need to sit down and negotiate mutual orders, something the Palestinians refuse to do.

 

[Phoenall]

You are completely deflecting again. Did you read the link I posted? The Palestinians used 181 to declare independence in 1988. There was no valid declaration of independence in 1948. You can't declare independence twice and have both of them be valid. I've done searches online for Palestinian declaration of independence and nothing about 1948 come up.

What was different that one declaration would be valid and the other not?

It's common sense. If a country declared independence twice, then it's obvious that the first one didn't work out since thet needed to do it again.

In the case of the Palestinians, they tried to declare independence on land that Israel had declared independence a few weeks (or months earlier).
Obviously if that declaration was valid,they would not have done it again in 1988

That is a common Fallacy.

Post a 1948 map of Israel showing what Israeli territory was claimed by the Palestinian's 1948 declaration.

You're playing this stupid game again Tinmore

Israel declared independence on the land allotted to it in the partition plan.

The Palestinians tried to declare independence on that land (and more) AFTER Israel did so. Why you have a hard time accepting this fact is beyond me.

No I am not. I just want you to prove your point.

I await your response.

Do you mean llke we are still waiting for you to prove your points raised over the last few years.