All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss

[P F Tinmore]

There is no "LAW" that is relative to the "right of return."

Rocco is 100% correct here, there is no "LAW" which expresses a positive "right of return".

There are several laws which expressly protect the right of states to handle their own domestic affairs, including nationality laws, and immigration of non-nationals.

There are also agreements which define the term "refugee" and express several "solutions" for refugees (with the implication that there is no one absolute right for refugees) and agreements for the prevention of statelessness (with the implication that there is a default position with respect to acquiring nationality -- and it is NOT country of ancestral origin).

There are several laws which expressly protect the right of states to handle their own domestic affairs, including nationality laws, and immigration of non-nationals.

According to the rule of nationality and state succession, the residents of the territory that falls inside of a successor state acquires the nationality of that successor state.

 

[Hollie]

There is no "LAW" that is relative to the "right of return."

Rocco is 100% correct here, there is no "LAW" which expresses a positive "right of return".

There are several laws which expressly protect the right of states to handle their own domestic affairs, including nationality laws, and immigration of non-nationals.

There are also agreements which define the term "refugee" and express several "solutions" for refugees (with the implication that there is no one absolute right for refugees) and agreements for the prevention of statelessness (with the implication that there is a default position with respect to acquiring nationality -- and it is NOT country of ancestral origin).

There are several laws which expressly protect the right of states to handle their own domestic affairs, including nationality laws, and immigration of non-nationals.

According to the rule of nationality and state succession, the residents of the territory that falls inside of a successor state acquires the nationality of that successor state.

Is that a rule you found in a YouTube video?

 

[Shusha]

According to the rule of nationality and state succession, the residents of the territory that falls inside of a successor state acquires the nationality of that successor state.

Well, the "rule" is not quite as much of a hard-and-fast rule as you would like to pretend it is. Especially back in 1924, or 1948. (Remember, normally new treaties and agreements are NOT retroactive. And you cannot apply today's law to the past. You can't use the Vienna Convention.) So, if you are using this as the sole interpretation which grants a "right of return", you are on very shaky ground.

Further, even if we allow this rule, it applies to individuals. It is not a collective right. Nor is the successor's nationality automatically passed down through generations. After that initial succession, the normal domestic nationality laws would apply. States right to determine who does and who does not have nationality is firmly entrenched in law.

In addition, there are legitimate, legal ways for individual nationals to become de-naturalized.

So, while your statement is largely true with respect to today's CIL, it is not a golden ticket to "right of return".

And, aside from all that, are you FINALLY acknowledging that Israel is a successor state to the Ottoman Empire? Walk me through your thinking on how nationality passed from the Ottoman Empire, through the 1920s, 1940s, 1960s and right up to today?

What nationality do you THINK the Arab Palestinians have? Include those who still live in "their own country", and those who live other countries.

 

[Hollie]

According to the rule of nationality and state succession, the residents of the territory that falls inside of a successor state acquires the nationality of that successor state.

Well, the "rule" is not quite as much of a hard-and-fast rule as you would like to pretend it is. Especially back in 1924, or 1948. (Remember, normally new treaties and agreements are NOT retroactive. And you cannot apply today's law to the past. You can't use the Vienna Convention.) So, if you are using this as the sole interpretation which grants a "right of return", you are on very shaky ground.

Further, even if we allow this rule, it applies to individuals. It is not a collective right. Nor is the successor's nationality automatically passed down through generations. After that initial succession, the normal domestic nationality laws would apply. States right to determine who does and who does not have nationality is firmly entrenched in law.

In addition, there are legitimate, legal ways for individual nationals to become de-naturalized.

So, while your statement is largely true with respect to today's CIL, it is not a golden ticket to "right of return".

And, aside from all that, are you FINALLY acknowledging that Israel is a successor state to the Ottoman Empire? Walk me through your thinking on how nationality passed from the Ottoman Empire, through the 1920s, 1940s, 1960s and right up to today?

What nationality do you THINK the Arab Palestinians have? Include those who still live in "their own country", and those who live other countries.

P F Tinmores’ rule is a part of the circuitous route he navigates around the Treaty of Lausanne creating his imagined “country of Pal’istan”. Therefore, the Treaty of Lausanne creating his imagined “country of Pal’istan”, thus created Pal’istanian citizens of that country. You can’t have a “country of Pal’istan” without Pal’istanians, now can you?

 

[P F Tinmore]

According to the rule of nationality and state succession, the residents of the territory that falls inside of a successor state acquires the nationality of that successor state.

Well, the "rule" is not quite as much of a hard-and-fast rule as you would like to pretend it is. Especially back in 1924, or 1948. (Remember, normally new treaties and agreements are NOT retroactive. And you cannot apply today's law to the past. You can't use the Vienna Convention.) So, if you are using this as the sole interpretation which grants a "right of return", you are on very shaky ground.

Further, even if we allow this rule, it applies to individuals. It is not a collective right. Nor is the successor's nationality automatically passed down through generations. After that initial succession, the normal domestic nationality laws would apply. States right to determine who does and who does not have nationality is firmly entrenched in law.

In addition, there are legitimate, legal ways for individual nationals to become de-naturalized.

So, while your statement is largely true with respect to today's CIL, it is not a golden ticket to "right of return".

And, aside from all that, are you FINALLY acknowledging that Israel is a successor state to the Ottoman Empire? Walk me through your thinking on how nationality passed from the Ottoman Empire, through the 1920s, 1940s, 1960s and right up to today?

What nationality do you THINK the Arab Palestinians have? Include those who still live in "their own country", and those who live other countries.

Well, the "rule" is not quite as much of a hard-and-fast rule as you would like to pretend it is. Especially back in 1924, or 1948.

I think it was from the 1907 Hague regulations.

 

[Shusha]

According to the rule of nationality and state succession, the residents of the territory that falls inside of a successor state acquires the nationality of that successor state.

Well, the "rule" is not quite as much of a hard-and-fast rule as you would like to pretend it is. Especially back in 1924, or 1948. (Remember, normally new treaties and agreements are NOT retroactive. And you cannot apply today's law to the past. You can't use the Vienna Convention.) So, if you are using this as the sole interpretation which grants a "right of return", you are on very shaky ground.

Further, even if we allow this rule, it applies to individuals. It is not a collective right. Nor is the successor's nationality automatically passed down through generations. After that initial succession, the normal domestic nationality laws would apply. States right to determine who does and who does not have nationality is firmly entrenched in law.

In addition, there are legitimate, legal ways for individual nationals to become de-naturalized.

So, while your statement is largely true with respect to today's CIL, it is not a golden ticket to "right of return".

And, aside from all that, are you FINALLY acknowledging that Israel is a successor state to the Ottoman Empire? Walk me through your thinking on how nationality passed from the Ottoman Empire, through the 1920s, 1940s, 1960s and right up to today?

What nationality do you THINK the Arab Palestinians have? Include those who still live in "their own country", and those who live other countries.

P F Tinmores’ rule is a part of the circuitous route he navigates around the Treaty of Lausanne creating his imagined “country of Pal’istan”. Therefore, the Treaty of Lausanne creating his imagined “country of Pal’istan”, thus created Pal’istanian citizens of that country. You can’t have a “country of Pal’istan” without Pal’istanians, now can you?

Tinmore likes to play fast and loose with the rules when we are talking about Jews. He constructs elaborate ‘international law’ based on what appeals to him at the moment.

I suspect he is going to argue that Palestine is a successor state to the Ottoman Empire and therefore all residents automatically obtained Palestinian citizenship. And if he wants to argue that, I’m happy to oblige him.

I have no idea how he is going to try to apply that in perpetuity while while ignoring any domestic nationality law. Or how he could possibly defend such a ridiculous notion.

The problem is that he wants to make 7 million Arabs somehow nationals of Israel, by right of law, and I just can’t see how he can manage that.

 

[Shusha]

According to the rule of nationality and state succession, the residents of the territory that falls inside of a successor state acquires the nationality of that successor state.

Well, the "rule" is not quite as much of a hard-and-fast rule as you would like to pretend it is. Especially back in 1924, or 1948. (Remember, normally new treaties and agreements are NOT retroactive. And you cannot apply today's law to the past. You can't use the Vienna Convention.) So, if you are using this as the sole interpretation which grants a "right of return", you are on very shaky ground.

Further, even if we allow this rule, it applies to individuals. It is not a collective right. Nor is the successor's nationality automatically passed down through generations. After that initial succession, the normal domestic nationality laws would apply. States right to determine who does and who does not have nationality is firmly entrenched in law.

In addition, there are legitimate, legal ways for individual nationals to become de-naturalized.

So, while your statement is largely true with respect to today's CIL, it is not a golden ticket to "right of return".

And, aside from all that, are you FINALLY acknowledging that Israel is a successor state to the Ottoman Empire? Walk me through your thinking on how nationality passed from the Ottoman Empire, through the 1920s, 1940s, 1960s and right up to today?

What nationality do you THINK the Arab Palestinians have? Include those who still live in "their own country", and those who live other countries.

Well, the "rule" is not quite as much of a hard-and-fast rule as you would like to pretend it is. Especially back in 1924, or 1948.

I think it was from the 1907 Hague regulations.

I don’t believe you are correct, but if you know and aren’t just throwing darts, help a lady out and point me to a specific Convention or Article.

 

[P F Tinmore]

According to the rule of nationality and state succession, the residents of the territory that falls inside of a successor state acquires the nationality of that successor state.

Well, the "rule" is not quite as much of a hard-and-fast rule as you would like to pretend it is. Especially back in 1924, or 1948. (Remember, normally new treaties and agreements are NOT retroactive. And you cannot apply today's law to the past. You can't use the Vienna Convention.) So, if you are using this as the sole interpretation which grants a "right of return", you are on very shaky ground.

Further, even if we allow this rule, it applies to individuals. It is not a collective right. Nor is the successor's nationality automatically passed down through generations. After that initial succession, the normal domestic nationality laws would apply. States right to determine who does and who does not have nationality is firmly entrenched in law.

In addition, there are legitimate, legal ways for individual nationals to become de-naturalized.

So, while your statement is largely true with respect to today's CIL, it is not a golden ticket to "right of return".

And, aside from all that, are you FINALLY acknowledging that Israel is a successor state to the Ottoman Empire? Walk me through your thinking on how nationality passed from the Ottoman Empire, through the 1920s, 1940s, 1960s and right up to today?

What nationality do you THINK the Arab Palestinians have? Include those who still live in "their own country", and those who live other countries.

P F Tinmores’ rule is a part of the circuitous route he navigates around the Treaty of Lausanne creating his imagined “country of Pal’istan”. Therefore, the Treaty of Lausanne creating his imagined “country of Pal’istan”, thus created Pal’istanian citizens of that country. You can’t have a “country of Pal’istan” without Pal’istanians, now can you?

Tinmore likes to play fast and loose with the rules when we are talking about Jews. He constructs elaborate ‘international law’ based on what appeals to him at the moment.

I suspect he is going to argue that Palestine is a successor state to the Ottoman Empire and therefore all residents automatically obtained Palestinian citizenship. And if he wants to argue that, I’m happy to oblige him.

I have no idea how he is going to try to apply that in perpetuity while while ignoring any domestic nationality law. Or how he could possibly defend such a ridiculous notion.

The problem is that he wants to make 7 million Arabs somehow nationals of Israel, by right of law, and I just can’t see how he can manage that.

The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the perspective of public international law. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British government pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine.”123 And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality.”124
------------------
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.”​

-------------------
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
-----------------
1. Citizenship. Palestinian citizens residing in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem, as well as Arabs and Jews who, not holding Palestinian citizenship, reside in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem shall, upon the recognition of independence, become citizens of the State in which they are resident and enjoy full civil and political rights.

A/RES/181(II) of 29 November 1947

 

[Shusha]

According to the rule of nationality and state succession, the residents of the territory that falls inside of a successor state acquires the nationality of that successor state.

Well, the "rule" is not quite as much of a hard-and-fast rule as you would like to pretend it is. Especially back in 1924, or 1948. (Remember, normally new treaties and agreements are NOT retroactive. And you cannot apply today's law to the past. You can't use the Vienna Convention.) So, if you are using this as the sole interpretation which grants a "right of return", you are on very shaky ground.

Further, even if we allow this rule, it applies to individuals. It is not a collective right. Nor is the successor's nationality automatically passed down through generations. After that initial succession, the normal domestic nationality laws would apply. States right to determine who does and who does not have nationality is firmly entrenched in law.

In addition, there are legitimate, legal ways for individual nationals to become de-naturalized.

So, while your statement is largely true with respect to today's CIL, it is not a golden ticket to "right of return".

And, aside from all that, are you FINALLY acknowledging that Israel is a successor state to the Ottoman Empire? Walk me through your thinking on how nationality passed from the Ottoman Empire, through the 1920s, 1940s, 1960s and right up to today?

What nationality do you THINK the Arab Palestinians have? Include those who still live in "their own country", and those who live other countries.

P F Tinmores’ rule is a part of the circuitous route he navigates around the Treaty of Lausanne creating his imagined “country of Pal’istan”. Therefore, the Treaty of Lausanne creating his imagined “country of Pal’istan”, thus created Pal’istanian citizens of that country. You can’t have a “country of Pal’istan” without Pal’istanians, now can you?

Tinmore likes to play fast and loose with the rules when we are talking about Jews. He constructs elaborate ‘international law’ based on what appeals to him at the moment.

I suspect he is going to argue that Palestine is a successor state to the Ottoman Empire and therefore all residents automatically obtained Palestinian citizenship. And if he wants to argue that, I’m happy to oblige him.

I have no idea how he is going to try to apply that in perpetuity while while ignoring any domestic nationality law. Or how he could possibly defend such a ridiculous notion.

The problem is that he wants to make 7 million Arabs somehow nationals of Israel, by right of law, and I just can’t see how he can manage that.

The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the perspective of public international law. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British government pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine.”123 And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality.”124
------------------
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.”​

-------------------
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

Sure. I’ve read the same article. So we agree that in 1924 there was an international de jure Palestinian nationality under the Mandate for Palestine.

We can probably also agree that there is a domestic de jure Palestinian nationality based in the Palestinian Citizenship Order of 1925.

(Please note this in no way suggests there was a State of Palestine extant at this time. The territory was governed by the British.)

So we agree that there was a specifically defined Palestinian nationality beginning in 1924.

What happened next?

 

[Shusha]

Also why do you bring up 181? Irrelevant. Never happened, remember?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Quit beating around the bush.

According to the rule of nationality and state succession, the residents of the territory that falls inside of a successor state acquires the nationality of that successor state.

(REFERENCE)

• Article 2, 1d Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties •
“successor State” means the State which has replaced another State on the occurrence of a succession of States;

(COMMENT)

The term 'nationality" is used twice in the treaty; the word citizenship is not used once. You will find it, not in the treaty language itself, but in the Annex (Paragraph 2).

2. When are quest has been made to the Secretary-General under article 42, the Secretary-General shall bring the dispute before a conciliation commission constituted as follows:

The State or States constituting one of the parties to the dispute shall appoint:

(a) one conciliator of the nationality of that State or of one of those States, who may or may not be chosen from the list referred to in paragraph1;and

(b) one conciliator not of the nationality of that State or of any of those States, who shall be chosen from the list.​

Israel views the issue as that they are only obligated by a treaty or convention that the "New State of Israel" has ratified.

The CONVENTION RELATING TO THE STATUS OF STATELESS PERSONS does NOT apply to persons covered by an agency other than the UN High Commissioner for Refugees.

Israel was not a Party to the Treaty of Lausanne (1924).

There is no such thing as “Israeli nationality." But that is a technical thing. If you want to know more, see Columbia University on the website.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

According to the rule of nationality and state succession, the residents of the territory that falls inside of a successor state acquires the nationality of that successor state.

Well, the "rule" is not quite as much of a hard-and-fast rule as you would like to pretend it is. Especially back in 1924, or 1948. (Remember, normally new treaties and agreements are NOT retroactive. And you cannot apply today's law to the past. You can't use the Vienna Convention.) So, if you are using this as the sole interpretation which grants a "right of return", you are on very shaky ground.

Further, even if we allow this rule, it applies to individuals. It is not a collective right. Nor is the successor's nationality automatically passed down through generations. After that initial succession, the normal domestic nationality laws would apply. States right to determine who does and who does not have nationality is firmly entrenched in law.

In addition, there are legitimate, legal ways for individual nationals to become de-naturalized.

So, while your statement is largely true with respect to today's CIL, it is not a golden ticket to "right of return".

And, aside from all that, are you FINALLY acknowledging that Israel is a successor state to the Ottoman Empire? Walk me through your thinking on how nationality passed from the Ottoman Empire, through the 1920s, 1940s, 1960s and right up to today?

What nationality do you THINK the Arab Palestinians have? Include those who still live in "their own country", and those who live other countries.

P F Tinmores’ rule is a part of the circuitous route he navigates around the Treaty of Lausanne creating his imagined “country of Pal’istan”. Therefore, the Treaty of Lausanne creating his imagined “country of Pal’istan”, thus created Pal’istanian citizens of that country. You can’t have a “country of Pal’istan” without Pal’istanians, now can you?

Tinmore likes to play fast and loose with the rules when we are talking about Jews. He constructs elaborate ‘international law’ based on what appeals to him at the moment.

I suspect he is going to argue that Palestine is a successor state to the Ottoman Empire and therefore all residents automatically obtained Palestinian citizenship. And if he wants to argue that, I’m happy to oblige him.

I have no idea how he is going to try to apply that in perpetuity while while ignoring any domestic nationality law. Or how he could possibly defend such a ridiculous notion.

The problem is that he wants to make 7 million Arabs somehow nationals of Israel, by right of law, and I just can’t see how he can manage that.

The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the perspective of public international law. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British government pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine.”123 And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality.”124
------------------
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.”​

-------------------
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

Sure. I’ve read the same article. So we agree that in 1924 there was an international de jure Palestinian nationality under the Mandate for Palestine.

We can probably also agree that there is a domestic de jure Palestinian nationality based in the Palestinian Citizenship Order of 1925.

(Please note this in no way suggests there was a State of Palestine extant at this time. The territory was governed by the British.)

So we agree that there was a specifically defined Palestinian nationality beginning in 1924.

What happened next?

The territory was governed by the British.

Irrelevant. The Mandates were temporarily assigned administration to render administrative assistance and advise. They did not acquire sovereignty.

What happened next?

Colonization.

 

[Hollie]

Irrelevant. The Mandates were temporarily assigned administration to render administrative assistance and advise. They did not acquire sovereignty.

Irrelevant. Israel acquired sovereignty.

Colonization.

Yes, Islamic colonization was a factor.


So, we are back to P F Tinmore cutting and pasting his “Ipso facto” snippet, out of context, and insisting that the Treaty of Lausanne somehow invented the “country of Pally’land”

Ten years of the same cut and paste nonsense.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Irrelevant. The Mandates were temporarily assigned administration to render administrative assistance and advise. They did not acquire sovereignty.

Irrelevant. Israel acquired sovereignty.

Colonization.

Yes, Islamic colonization was a factor.


So, we are back to P F Tinmore cutting and pasting his “Ipso facto” snippet, out of context, and insisting that the Treaty of Lausanne somehow invented the “country of Pally’land”

Ten years of the same cut and paste nonsense.

Irrelevant. Israel acquired sovereignty.

Unsubstantiated Israeli talking point.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Irrelevant. The Mandates were temporarily assigned administration to render administrative assistance and advise. They did not acquire sovereignty.

Irrelevant. Israel acquired sovereignty.

Colonization.

Yes, Islamic colonization was a factor.


So, we are back to P F Tinmore cutting and pasting his “Ipso facto” snippet, out of context, and insisting that the Treaty of Lausanne somehow invented the “country of Pally’land”

Ten years of the same cut and paste nonsense.

Ten years of the same cut and paste nonsense.

Indeed, Zionists are slow learners.

 

[Hollie]

Irrelevant. The Mandates were temporarily assigned administration to render administrative assistance and advise. They did not acquire sovereignty.

Irrelevant. Israel acquired sovereignty.

Colonization.

Yes, Islamic colonization was a factor.


So, we are back to P F Tinmore cutting and pasting his “Ipso facto” snippet, out of context, and insisting that the Treaty of Lausanne somehow invented the “country of Pally’land”

Ten years of the same cut and paste nonsense.

Ten years of the same cut and paste nonsense.

Indeed, Zionists are slow learners.

Indeed, It is comical that Islamics invent history as a way to invent some imagined “country of Pal’istan”.

Don’t you find it odd that the Treaty of Lausanne, which you believe created your magical Kingdom of Pally’land, somehow neglected to mention such a place?

 

[Hollie]

Irrelevant. The Mandates were temporarily assigned administration to render administrative assistance and advise. They did not acquire sovereignty.

Irrelevant. Israel acquired sovereignty.

Colonization.

Yes, Islamic colonization was a factor.


So, we are back to P F Tinmore cutting and pasting his “Ipso facto” snippet, out of context, and insisting that the Treaty of Lausanne somehow invented the “country of Pally’land”

Ten years of the same cut and paste nonsense.

Irrelevant. Israel acquired sovereignty.

Unsubstantiated Israeli talking point.

So, your newest conspiracy theory is that Israel has not acquired sovereignty? That’s odd because the state of Israel demonstrates the various attributes that define national sovereignty.

National sovereignty

You might have a Press TV produced YouTube video that contradicts?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Irrelevant. The Mandates were temporarily assigned administration to render administrative assistance and advise. They did not acquire sovereignty.

Irrelevant. Israel acquired sovereignty.

Colonization.

Yes, Islamic colonization was a factor.


So, we are back to P F Tinmore cutting and pasting his “Ipso facto” snippet, out of context, and insisting that the Treaty of Lausanne somehow invented the “country of Pally’land”

Ten years of the same cut and paste nonsense.

Ten years of the same cut and paste nonsense.

Indeed, Zionists are slow learners.

Indeed, It is comical that Islamics invent history as a way to invent some imagined “country of Pal’istan”.

Don’t you find it odd that the Treaty of Lausanne, which you believe created your magical Kingdom of Pally’land, somehow neglected to mention such a place?

Deflection.

None of the new states were mentioned.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Irrelevant. The Mandates were temporarily assigned administration to render administrative assistance and advise. They did not acquire sovereignty.

Irrelevant. Israel acquired sovereignty.

Colonization.

Yes, Islamic colonization was a factor.


So, we are back to P F Tinmore cutting and pasting his “Ipso facto” snippet, out of context, and insisting that the Treaty of Lausanne somehow invented the “country of Pally’land”

Ten years of the same cut and paste nonsense.

Irrelevant. Israel acquired sovereignty.

Unsubstantiated Israeli talking point.

So, your newest conspiracy theory is that Israel has not acquired sovereignty? That’s odd because the state of Israel demonstrates the various attributes that define national sovereignty.

National sovereignty

You might have a Press TV produced YouTube video that contradicts?

Sure I do, but it is up to you to prove your point.

 

[Shusha]

Well, the "rule" is not quite as much of a hard-and-fast rule as you would like to pretend it is. Especially back in 1924, or 1948. (Remember, normally new treaties and agreements are NOT retroactive. And you cannot apply today's law to the past. You can't use the Vienna Convention.) So, if you are using this as the sole interpretation which grants a "right of return", you are on very shaky ground.

Further, even if we allow this rule, it applies to individuals. It is not a collective right. Nor is the successor's nationality automatically passed down through generations. After that initial succession, the normal domestic nationality laws would apply. States right to determine who does and who does not have nationality is firmly entrenched in law.

In addition, there are legitimate, legal ways for individual nationals to become de-naturalized.

So, while your statement is largely true with respect to today's CIL, it is not a golden ticket to "right of return".

And, aside from all that, are you FINALLY acknowledging that Israel is a successor state to the Ottoman Empire? Walk me through your thinking on how nationality passed from the Ottoman Empire, through the 1920s, 1940s, 1960s and right up to today?

What nationality do you THINK the Arab Palestinians have? Include those who still live in "their own country", and those who live other countries.

P F Tinmores’ rule is a part of the circuitous route he navigates around the Treaty of Lausanne creating his imagined “country of Pal’istan”. Therefore, the Treaty of Lausanne creating his imagined “country of Pal’istan”, thus created Pal’istanian citizens of that country. You can’t have a “country of Pal’istan” without Pal’istanians, now can you?

Tinmore likes to play fast and loose with the rules when we are talking about Jews. He constructs elaborate ‘international law’ based on what appeals to him at the moment.

I suspect he is going to argue that Palestine is a successor state to the Ottoman Empire and therefore all residents automatically obtained Palestinian citizenship. And if he wants to argue that, I’m happy to oblige him.

I have no idea how he is going to try to apply that in perpetuity while while ignoring any domestic nationality law. Or how he could possibly defend such a ridiculous notion.

The problem is that he wants to make 7 million Arabs somehow nationals of Israel, by right of law, and I just can’t see how he can manage that.

The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the perspective of public international law. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British government pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine.”123 And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality.”124
------------------
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.”​

-------------------
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

Sure. I’ve read the same article. So we agree that in 1924 there was an international de jure Palestinian nationality under the Mandate for Palestine.

We can probably also agree that there is a domestic de jure Palestinian nationality based in the Palestinian Citizenship Order of 1925.

(Please note this in no way suggests there was a State of Palestine extant at this time. The territory was governed by the British.)

So we agree that there was a specifically defined Palestinian nationality beginning in 1924.

What happened next?

The territory was governed by the British.

Irrelevant. The Mandates were temporarily assigned administration to render administrative assistance and advise. They did not acquire sovereignty.

What happened next?

Colonization.

So in your mind, what happened with respect to nationality after 1925? Or are you trying to argue that the territory is still governed by the 1925 Palestinian Citizenship Order?