Widening Of The Buffer Zone

[P F Tinmore]

fanger, et al,

Why did you cite Article 5?

ART. 5.
The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power.

The Avalon Project The Palestine Mandate

(COMMENT)

There was no territory ceded or leased to a foreign power.

Most Respectfully,
R

That is correct.

The Mandate quit Palestine without ceding or leasing any land to anyone. They left Palestine in the hands of its citizens.

 

[eagle1462010]

fanger, et al,

Why did you cite Article 5?

ART. 5.
The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power.

The Avalon Project The Palestine Mandate

(COMMENT)

There was no territory ceded or leased to a foreign power.

Most Respectfully,
R

That is correct.

The Mandate quit Palestine without ceding or leasing any land to anyone. They left Palestine in the hands of its citizens.

They were offered land and a country...................They chose WAR and LOST.

 

[toastman]

fanger, et al,

Why did you cite Article 5?

ART. 5.
The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power.

The Avalon Project The Palestine Mandate

(COMMENT)

There was no territory ceded or leased to a foreign power.

Most Respectfully,
R

That is correct.

The Mandate quit Palestine without ceding or leasing any land to anyone. They left Palestine in the hands of its citizens.

So the land belonged to the Palestinians, yet in 1947 , a part of the region was offered to them as a country....

PAlestinian Arabs lived on the land and owned land. But the region did not belong to them. Maybe symbolically it did, but that means nothing in real life.

 

[aris2chat]

fanger, et al,

Why did you cite Article 5?

ART. 5.
The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power.

The Avalon Project The Palestine Mandate

(COMMENT)

There was no territory ceded or leased to a foreign power.

Most Respectfully,
R

That is correct.

The Mandate quit Palestine without ceding or leasing any land to anyone. They left Palestine in the hands of its citizens.

So the land belonged to the Palestinians, yet in 1947 , a part of the region was offered to them as a country....

PAlestinian Arabs lived on the land and owned land. But the region did not belong to them. Maybe symbolically it did, but that means nothing in real life.

Jordan, egypt and syria each though it should belong to them.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Now we are just quibbling over derivative authority versus statutory authority.

In all matters relating to the Administration of Palestine, the authority was derivative; even the authority of the Mandatory (UK).

[

Where in your link does it say that the Jewish agency "had no authority inside the mandate and after the mandate left it had no right to stay in Palestine" ?

From Rocco's post:

The "Jewish Agency" (JA) was a prerequisite established under Article 4, The Mandate For Palestine; established in 1929. The JA had to be accredited by the World Zionist Organization (WZO) under the Article 4, "as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home."​

It was an advisory organization. It had no authority. It was a part of the mandate and had no function absent the mandate.

(COMMENT)

In January 1947, the Jewish Agency was unequivocally the designated representatives to assist the UN Palestine Commission in the establishment of an Independent State. This was completely outside the scope of the Mandate. That is because it was amid the transition.

Your argument is now convoluted. With regard to True Authority, you are correct. The Jewish Agency had no true authority any more than the Arab Higher Committee had any authority. All authority was administered and delegated to the Mandatory. That does not diminish that contributions made by the Jewish Agency in the utimate establishment of the Jewish National Home.

In terms of authority to exercise the right of self-determination, the Jewish Agency, had all the authority required to complete the Steps Preparatory to Independence for the Provisional Government to Declare Independence; much much more than that of the Arab Palestinian; this is self evident in the face of the fact that it was accomplished. A goal towards nationalism which the Arab Palestinian were unable to attain.

You want to call it "advisory" --- so be it. In reality --- they built a nation that endures to this day and is self-governing and economically stable and sound. What did the Arab Palestinian accomplish?

You as a proPalestinian can criticize the Israeli all you want, but in the end, they have a nation working towards peace. In contrast, the Arab Palestinian has a dysfunctional operations that is monetarily parasitic and Jihadist in nature working towards the continuation of conflict.

Most Respectfully,
R

Indeed, and all of that was in violation of the inalienable rights of the native population.

You know, the Palestinians, that the lying sacks of shit in Israel have always claimed did not exist.

Not as they were applied in 1920 when the Mandate was undertaken, and the only Palestinians at that time were the Jews. The arab muslims called themselves Syrians.[/QUOTE]
Where do you keep getting all of your lies? (link?)

Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:

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

Article 30 is of a great significance. It constituted a declaration of existing international law and the standard practice of states. This was despite the absence of a definite international law rule of state succession under which the nationals of predecessor state could ipso facto acquire the nationality of the successor.129 “As a rule, however, States have conferred their nationality on the former nationals of the predecessor State.”130 In practice, almost all peace treaties concluded between the Allies and other states at the end of World War I embodied nationality provisions similar to those of the Treaty of Lausanne. The inhabitants of Palestine, as the successors of this territory, henceforth acquired Palestinian nationality even if there was no treaty with Turkey.

The Treaty confirmed the previous practice whereby inhabitants were effectively regarded as Palestinians. To be sure, most of the Treaty’s nationality rules were later embodied in the 1925 Palestinian Citizenship Order and became part of the country’s law.

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel

It simply said "Turkish subjects" without specifying any religion. Most of those subjects were Muslim, then Christians, then Jews respectively. They were all Palestinians.

 

[P F Tinmore]

fanger, et al,

Why did you cite Article 5?

ART. 5.
The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power.

The Avalon Project The Palestine Mandate

(COMMENT)

There was no territory ceded or leased to a foreign power.

Most Respectfully,
R

That is correct.

The Mandate quit Palestine without ceding or leasing any land to anyone. They left Palestine in the hands of its citizens.

They were offered land and a country...................They chose WAR and LOST.

They were not offered any land.

 

[eagle1462010]

fanger, et al,

Why did you cite Article 5?

ART. 5.
The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power.

The Avalon Project The Palestine Mandate

(COMMENT)

There was no territory ceded or leased to a foreign power.

Most Respectfully,
R

That is correct.

The Mandate quit Palestine without ceding or leasing any land to anyone. They left Palestine in the hands of its citizens.

They were offered land and a country...................They chose WAR and LOST.

They were not offered any land.

Again you LIE...........

 

[P F Tinmore]

fanger, et al,

Why did you cite Article 5?

The Avalon Project The Palestine Mandate

(COMMENT)

There was no territory ceded or leased to a foreign power.

Most Respectfully,
R

That is correct.

The Mandate quit Palestine without ceding or leasing any land to anyone. They left Palestine in the hands of its citizens.

They were offered land and a country...................They chose WAR and LOST.

They were not offered any land.

Again you LIE...........

What land were they offered and under what condition?

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[eagle1462010]

United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The resolution recommended the creation of independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem. The Partition Plan, a four-part document attached to the resolution, provided for the termination of the Mandate, the progressive withdrawal of British armed forces and the delineation of boundaries between the two States and Jerusalem. Part I of the Plan stipulated that the Mandate would be terminated as soon as possible and the United Kingdom would withdraw no later than 1 August 1948. The new states would come into existence two months after the withdrawal, but no later than 1 October 1948. The Plan sought to address the conflicting objectives and claims of two competing movements: Arab nationalism in Palestine and Jewish nationalism, known as Zionism.[3][4] The Plan also called for Economic Unionbetween the proposed states, and for the protection of religious and minority rights.

The Plan was accepted by the Jewish public, except for its fringes, and by the Jewish Agency despite its perceived limitations.[5][6]

Arab leaders and governments rejected the plan of partition in the resolution[7] and indicated an unwillingness to accept any form of territorial division.[8] Their reason was that it violated the principles ofnational self-determination in the UN charter which granted people the right to decide their own destiny.[6][9]

Immediately after adoption of the Resolution by the General Assembly, the civil war broke out.[10] The partition plan was not implemented.[11]

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Palestinians were offered half of Palestine.

Such a deal!

No wonder they rejected it.

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Now we are just quibbling over derivative authority versus statutory authority.

In all matters relating to the Administration of Palestine, the authority was derivative; even the authority of the Mandatory (UK).

[

Where in your link does it say that the Jewish agency "had no authority inside the mandate and after the mandate left it had no right to stay in Palestine" ?

From Rocco's post:

The "Jewish Agency" (JA) was a prerequisite established under Article 4, The Mandate For Palestine; established in 1929. The JA had to be accredited by the World Zionist Organization (WZO) under the Article 4, "as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home."​

It was an advisory organization. It had no authority. It was a part of the mandate and had no function absent the mandate.

(COMMENT)

In January 1947, the Jewish Agency was unequivocally the designated representatives to assist the UN Palestine Commission in the establishment of an Independent State. This was completely outside the scope of the Mandate. That is because it was amid the transition.

Your argument is now convoluted. With regard to True Authority, you are correct. The Jewish Agency had no true authority any more than the Arab Higher Committee had any authority. All authority was administered and delegated to the Mandatory. That does not diminish that contributions made by the Jewish Agency in the utimate establishment of the Jewish National Home.

In terms of authority to exercise the right of self-determination, the Jewish Agency, had all the authority required to complete the Steps Preparatory to Independence for the Provisional Government to Declare Independence; much much more than that of the Arab Palestinian; this is self evident in the face of the fact that it was accomplished. A goal towards nationalism which the Arab Palestinian were unable to attain.

You want to call it "advisory" --- so be it. In reality --- they built a nation that endures to this day and is self-governing and economically stable and sound. What did the Arab Palestinian accomplish?

You as a proPalestinian can criticize the Israeli all you want, but in the end, they have a nation working towards peace. In contrast, the Arab Palestinian has a dysfunctional operations that is monetarily parasitic and Jihadist in nature working towards the continuation of conflict.

Most Respectfully,
R

Indeed, and all of that was in violation of the inalienable rights of the native population.

You know, the Palestinians, that the lying sacks of shit in Israel have always claimed did not exist.

Not as they were applied in 1920 when the Mandate was undertaken, and the only Palestinians at that time were the Jews. The arab muslims called themselves Syrians.

Where do you keep getting all of your lies? (link?)

Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:

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

Article 30 is of a great significance. It constituted a declaration of existing international law and the standard practice of states. This was despite the absence of a definite international law rule of state succession under which the nationals of predecessor state could ipso facto acquire the nationality of the successor.129 “As a rule, however, States have conferred their nationality on the former nationals of the predecessor State.”130 In practice, almost all peace treaties concluded between the Allies and other states at the end of World War I embodied nationality provisions similar to those of the Treaty of Lausanne. The inhabitants of Palestine, as the successors of this territory, henceforth acquired Palestinian nationality even if there was no treaty with Turkey.

The Treaty confirmed the previous practice whereby inhabitants were effectively regarded as Palestinians. To be sure, most of the Treaty’s nationality rules were later embodied in the 1925 Palestinian Citizenship Order and became part of the country’s law.

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel

It simply said "Turkish subjects" without specifying any religion. Most of those subjects were Muslim, then Christians, then Jews respectively. They were all Palestinians.[/QUOTE]
The treaty Lausanne had NOTHING to do with Palestine.

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[toastman]

The Palestinians were offered half of Palestine.

Such a deal!

No wonder they rejected it.

It sure looks like a good deal now, since the State of Palestine is even less than what was offered to them

 

[eagle1462010]

The Palestinians were offered half of Palestine.

Such a deal!

No wonder they rejected it.

And again JORDAN was part of the original Mandate.......................................Why aren't they attacking them........................

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This DID NOT happen; and you know this.

fanger, et al,

Why did you cite Article 5?

ART. 5.
The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power.

The Avalon Project The Palestine Mandate

(COMMENT)

There was no territory ceded or leased to a foreign power.

Most Respectfully,
R

That is correct.

The Mandate quit Palestine without ceding or leasing any land to anyone. They left Palestine in the hands of its citizens.

(COMMENT)

You know that the UK MEMORANDUM NAMES COMMISSION AS SUCCESSOR GOVERNMENT did not leave it in the hands of the citizens.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The resolution recommended the creation of independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem. The Partition Plan, a four-part document attached to the resolution, provided for the termination of the Mandate, the progressive withdrawal of British armed forces and the delineation of boundaries between the two States and Jerusalem. Part I of the Plan stipulated that the Mandate would be terminated as soon as possible and the United Kingdom would withdraw no later than 1 August 1948. The new states would come into existence two months after the withdrawal, but no later than 1 October 1948. The Plan sought to address the conflicting objectives and claims of two competing movements: Arab nationalism in Palestine and Jewish nationalism, known as Zionism.[3][4] The Plan also called for Economic Unionbetween the proposed states, and for the protection of religious and minority rights.

The Plan was accepted by the Jewish public, except for its fringes, and by the Jewish Agency despite its perceived limitations.[5][6]

Arab leaders and governments rejected the plan of partition in the resolution[7] and indicated an unwillingness to accept any form of territorial division.[8] Their reason was that it violated the principles ofnational self-determination in the UN charter which granted people the right to decide their own destiny.[6][9]

Immediately after adoption of the Resolution by the General Assembly, the civil war broke out.[10] The partition plan was not implemented.[11]

Bottom line.

The partition plan was not implemented.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This DID NOT happen; and you know this.

fanger, et al,

Why did you cite Article 5?

ART. 5.
The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power.

The Avalon Project The Palestine Mandate

(COMMENT)

There was no territory ceded or leased to a foreign power.

Most Respectfully,
R

That is correct.

The Mandate quit Palestine without ceding or leasing any land to anyone. They left Palestine in the hands of its citizens.

(COMMENT)

You know that the UK MEMORANDUM NAMES COMMISSION AS SUCCESSOR GOVERNMENT did not leave it in the hands of the citizens.

Most Respectfully,
R

And where was this so called Palestine commission when it was time to protect the land and people in its trust?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, with making a statement out of context.

United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The resolution recommended the creation of independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem. The Partition Plan, a four-part document attached to the resolution, provided for the termination of the Mandate, the progressive withdrawal of British armed forces and the delineation of boundaries between the two States and Jerusalem. Part I of the Plan stipulated that the Mandate would be terminated as soon as possible and the United Kingdom would withdraw no later than 1 August 1948. The new states would come into existence two months after the withdrawal, but no later than 1 October 1948. The Plan sought to address the conflicting objectives and claims of two competing movements: Arab nationalism in Palestine and Jewish nationalism, known as Zionism.[3][4] The Plan also called for Economic Unionbetween the proposed states, and for the protection of religious and minority rights.

The Plan was accepted by the Jewish public, except for its fringes, and by the Jewish Agency despite its perceived limitations.[5][6]

Arab leaders and governments rejected the plan of partition in the resolution[7] and indicated an unwillingness to accept any form of territorial division.[8] Their reason was that it violated the principles ofnational self-determination in the UN charter which granted people the right to decide their own destiny.[6][9]

Immediately after adoption of the Resolution by the General Assembly, the civil war broke out.[10] The partition plan was not implemented.[11]

Bottom line.

The partition plan was not implemented.

(OBSERVATION)

An official release --- for the International Community --- from the UN and the Successor Government (the UN Palestine Commission):

During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented."

SOURCE: Press Release PAL/169 17 May 1948

(COMMENT)

You consistently make these bold and blatantly false statements. Just because the Plan was not implemented to your satisfaction, does not mean that you have the last word.

The Plan did not require both parties to agree.

F. ADMISSION TO MEMBERSHIP IN THE UNITED NATIONS

When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, have been signed by either of them, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations.

SOURCE: UN GA/RES/181(II)

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[toastman]

United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The resolution recommended the creation of independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem. The Partition Plan, a four-part document attached to the resolution, provided for the termination of the Mandate, the progressive withdrawal of British armed forces and the delineation of boundaries between the two States and Jerusalem. Part I of the Plan stipulated that the Mandate would be terminated as soon as possible and the United Kingdom would withdraw no later than 1 August 1948. The new states would come into existence two months after the withdrawal, but no later than 1 October 1948. The Plan sought to address the conflicting objectives and claims of two competing movements: Arab nationalism in Palestine and Jewish nationalism, known as Zionism.[3][4] The Plan also called for Economic Unionbetween the proposed states, and for the protection of religious and minority rights.

The Plan was accepted by the Jewish public, except for its fringes, and by the Jewish Agency despite its perceived limitations.[5][6]

Arab leaders and governments rejected the plan of partition in the resolution[7] and indicated an unwillingness to accept any form of territorial division.[8] Their reason was that it violated the principles ofnational self-determination in the UN charter which granted people the right to decide their own destiny.[6][9]

Immediately after adoption of the Resolution by the General Assembly, the civil war broke out.[10] The partition plan was not implemented.[11]

Bottom line.

The partition plan was not implemented.

Again with the same lies?