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

[P F Tinmore]

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

OH no, that is entirely wrong. Palestine was not recognized as a state.

Palestine was widely recognized as a state all through the Mandate period.

It must be true. You read it on Wikipedia.

Time to circle back to “the Treaty of Lausanne created the state of Pal’istan”.

(COMMENT ONE)

It was recognized as territory to which the Mandate for Palestine applied.

Palestine had a Mandate Government with the responsibility and authorities as outlined in "Posting #8265."

Encyclopedia of Public International Law
ADMINISTRATIVE, JUDICIAL AND LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES
1. Historical Evolution of Legal Rules​

Every ~ State may exercise sovereign acts in all territories where no other nation has previously established exclusive jurisdiction or where no other prohibition is valid (~ Sovereignty). In contrast, however, every nation has a right to expect that its ~ territorial sovereignty will be respected by other nations.​

GOVERNMENT
1. Notion​

In its broadest se~se government, in addition to, population" and territory, is one of the essential
elements which qualify a ~ State ~ as a ~ subject of international law. It is the active element, the
organizational machinery which enables the State to enter into ~ international relations, exercise
its rights and fulfill its duties (~ States, Fundamental Rights and Duties). As legal entities "States can act only by and through _their agents and representatives" (~ German Settlers in Poland (Advisory Opinion), PCIJ, Series B, No.6 (1923) p. 1, at p. 22), i.e. their organs.​

(COMMENT TWO)

I know that in these discussions, we tend to throw these terms around loosely. But you have to understand, that before you (and ask yourself who the "you" is) can have a "State", you have to have a functioning Government. All the things that make up a functioning government are listed in Posting #8265, and in the hands of the British; NOT the Arab Palestinians. And as you know, the Arab Palestinians declined to participate in the development in self-governing institutions for the third time in 1923.

"From 1922 until the present day, the High Commissioner has governed Palestine with the aid of Councils consisting exclusively of British officials." (A/AC.14/8 UK History of Administration 2 October 1947)​

Yes, there was a government, no it had no Arab Component at all during the Mandate Period. So, there was no "State" in the territory. There was the Mandate Government which acted in a controlling manner.

Most Respectfully,
R

Yes, there was a government, no it had no Arab Component at all during the Mandate Period.

So, are you saying that illegal external interference can negate a state?

 

[P F Tinmore]

And as you know, the Arab Palestinians declined to participate in the development in self-governing institutions for the third time in 1923.

That is the propaganda half of the story.

 

[Shusha]

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

OH no, that is entirely wrong. Palestine was not recognized as a state.

Palestine was widely recognized as a state all through the Mandate period.

It must be true. You read it on Wikipedia.

Time to circle back to “the Treaty of Lausanne created the state of Pal’istan”.

(COMMENT ONE)

It was recognized as territory to which the Mandate for Palestine applied.

Palestine had a Mandate Government with the responsibility and authorities as outlined in "Posting #8265."

Encyclopedia of Public International Law
ADMINISTRATIVE, JUDICIAL AND LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES
1. Historical Evolution of Legal Rules​

Every ~ State may exercise sovereign acts in all territories where no other nation has previously established exclusive jurisdiction or where no other prohibition is valid (~ Sovereignty). In contrast, however, every nation has a right to expect that its ~ territorial sovereignty will be respected by other nations.​

GOVERNMENT
1. Notion​

In its broadest se~se government, in addition to, population" and territory, is one of the essential
elements which qualify a ~ State ~ as a ~ subject of international law. It is the active element, the
organizational machinery which enables the State to enter into ~ international relations, exercise
its rights and fulfill its duties (~ States, Fundamental Rights and Duties). As legal entities "States can act only by and through _their agents and representatives" (~ German Settlers in Poland (Advisory Opinion), PCIJ, Series B, No.6 (1923) p. 1, at p. 22), i.e. their organs.​

(COMMENT TWO)

I know that in these discussions, we tend to throw these terms around loosely. But you have to understand, that before you (and ask yourself who the "you" is) can have a "State", you have to have a functioning Government. All the things that make up a functioning government are listed in Posting #8265, and in the hands of the British; NOT the Arab Palestinians. And as you know, the Arab Palestinians declined to participate in the development in self-governing institutions for the third time in 1923.

"From 1922 until the present day, the High Commissioner has governed Palestine with the aid of Councils consisting exclusively of British officials." (A/AC.14/8 UK History of Administration 2 October 1947)​

Yes, there was a government, no it had no Arab Component at all during the Mandate Period. So, there was no "State" in the territory. There was the Mandate Government which acted in a controlling manner.

Most Respectfully,
R

Yes, there was a government, no it had no Arab Component at all during the Mandate Period.

So, are you saying that illegal external interference can negate a state?

Of course Rocco is not saying that.

Actually, I think you will be hard-pressed to find anything that "negates" a state. States are legal entities. They either exist or they do not exist. There is no legal argument that a state exists, but somehow doesn't count or isn't "valid" or has been "negated".

BTW, still waiting for your response to my post upthread about what happened to the Palestinian nationality in the absence of a government when Britian abandoned the Mandate.

 

[Shusha]

And as you know, the Arab Palestinians declined to participate in the development in self-governing institutions for the third time in 1923.

That is the propaganda half of the story.

Regardless, the Arab population did not, in point of fact, develop any meaningful self-governing institutions.

 

[RoccoR]

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

Who said anything, anything at all → about external interference? (RHETORICAL)

BLUF: The conclusion is that there was no "external interference." The Allied Powers CANNOT interfere with the Allied Powers.

Yes, there was a government, no it had no Arab Component at all during the Mandate Period.

So, are you saying that external interference can negate a state?

(COMMENT)

Before there can be such a thing as external interference, you have to determine "who" is being interfered with?

SUB-QUESTION: Who had the lawful authority over the territories? (RHETORICAL)

• ARTICLE - 16 > Treaty of Lausanne •

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

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

Turkey (a party to the Treaty) renounced all rights and title of the territories to the Allied Powers (parties to the treaty). No Arab contingent was a party to the treaty. The Arab Palestinians were considered to be the inhabitants of the Occupied Enemy Territory under the Administration by the Allied Powers.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

OH no, that is entirely wrong. Palestine was not recognized as a state.

Palestine was widely recognized as a state all through the Mandate period.

It must be true. You read it on Wikipedia.

Time to circle back to “the Treaty of Lausanne created the state of Pal’istan”.

(COMMENT ONE)

It was recognized as territory to which the Mandate for Palestine applied.

Palestine had a Mandate Government with the responsibility and authorities as outlined in "Posting #8265."

Encyclopedia of Public International Law
ADMINISTRATIVE, JUDICIAL AND LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES
1. Historical Evolution of Legal Rules​

Every ~ State may exercise sovereign acts in all territories where no other nation has previously established exclusive jurisdiction or where no other prohibition is valid (~ Sovereignty). In contrast, however, every nation has a right to expect that its ~ territorial sovereignty will be respected by other nations.​

GOVERNMENT
1. Notion​

In its broadest se~se government, in addition to, population" and territory, is one of the essential
elements which qualify a ~ State ~ as a ~ subject of international law. It is the active element, the
organizational machinery which enables the State to enter into ~ international relations, exercise
its rights and fulfill its duties (~ States, Fundamental Rights and Duties). As legal entities "States can act only by and through _their agents and representatives" (~ German Settlers in Poland (Advisory Opinion), PCIJ, Series B, No.6 (1923) p. 1, at p. 22), i.e. their organs.​

(COMMENT TWO)

I know that in these discussions, we tend to throw these terms around loosely. But you have to understand, that before you (and ask yourself who the "you" is) can have a "State", you have to have a functioning Government. All the things that make up a functioning government are listed in Posting #8265, and in the hands of the British; NOT the Arab Palestinians. And as you know, the Arab Palestinians declined to participate in the development in self-governing institutions for the third time in 1923.

"From 1922 until the present day, the High Commissioner has governed Palestine with the aid of Councils consisting exclusively of British officials." (A/AC.14/8 UK History of Administration 2 October 1947)​

Yes, there was a government, no it had no Arab Component at all during the Mandate Period. So, there was no "State" in the territory. There was the Mandate Government which acted in a controlling manner.

Most Respectfully,
R

Yes, there was a government, no it had no Arab Component at all during the Mandate Period.

So, are you saying that illegal external interference can negate a state?

Of course Rocco is not saying that.

Actually, I think you will be hard-pressed to find anything that "negates" a state. States are legal entities. They either exist or they do not exist. There is no legal argument that a state exists, but somehow doesn't count or isn't "valid" or has been "negated".

BTW, still waiting for your response to my post upthread about what happened to the Palestinian nationality in the absence of a government when Britian abandoned the Mandate.

The Mandate was not the sovereign power. Leaving did not change anything.

 

[Hollie]

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

OH no, that is entirely wrong. Palestine was not recognized as a state.

Palestine was widely recognized as a state all through the Mandate period.

It must be true. You read it on Wikipedia.

Time to circle back to “the Treaty of Lausanne created the state of Pal’istan”.

(COMMENT ONE)

It was recognized as territory to which the Mandate for Palestine applied.

Palestine had a Mandate Government with the responsibility and authorities as outlined in "Posting #8265."

Encyclopedia of Public International Law
ADMINISTRATIVE, JUDICIAL AND LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES
1. Historical Evolution of Legal Rules​

Every ~ State may exercise sovereign acts in all territories where no other nation has previously established exclusive jurisdiction or where no other prohibition is valid (~ Sovereignty). In contrast, however, every nation has a right to expect that its ~ territorial sovereignty will be respected by other nations.​

GOVERNMENT
1. Notion​

In its broadest se~se government, in addition to, population" and territory, is one of the essential
elements which qualify a ~ State ~ as a ~ subject of international law. It is the active element, the
organizational machinery which enables the State to enter into ~ international relations, exercise
its rights and fulfill its duties (~ States, Fundamental Rights and Duties). As legal entities "States can act only by and through _their agents and representatives" (~ German Settlers in Poland (Advisory Opinion), PCIJ, Series B, No.6 (1923) p. 1, at p. 22), i.e. their organs.​

(COMMENT TWO)

I know that in these discussions, we tend to throw these terms around loosely. But you have to understand, that before you (and ask yourself who the "you" is) can have a "State", you have to have a functioning Government. All the things that make up a functioning government are listed in Posting #8265, and in the hands of the British; NOT the Arab Palestinians. And as you know, the Arab Palestinians declined to participate in the development in self-governing institutions for the third time in 1923.

"From 1922 until the present day, the High Commissioner has governed Palestine with the aid of Councils consisting exclusively of British officials." (A/AC.14/8 UK History of Administration 2 October 1947)​

Yes, there was a government, no it had no Arab Component at all during the Mandate Period. So, there was no "State" in the territory. There was the Mandate Government which acted in a controlling manner.

Most Respectfully,
R

Yes, there was a government, no it had no Arab Component at all during the Mandate Period.

So, are you saying that illegal external interference can negate a state?

Of course Rocco is not saying that.

Actually, I think you will be hard-pressed to find anything that "negates" a state. States are legal entities. They either exist or they do not exist. There is no legal argument that a state exists, but somehow doesn't count or isn't "valid" or has been "negated".

BTW, still waiting for your response to my post upthread about what happened to the Palestinian nationality in the absence of a government when Britian abandoned the Mandate.

The Mandate was not the sovereign power. Leaving did not change anything.

You don't understand the issues, the Arabs-Moslems were never a sovereign power.

 

[RoccoR]

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

OK - One more time.

The Mandate was not the sovereign power. Leaving did not change anything.

(COMMENT)

No one mentioned a "Sovereignty Issue." In fact, without a "government," you cannot have a "state," and without the "state" you cannot have a "sovereignty."

There was nothing illegal about the Mandate Government.

The Arab Palestinians were NOT interfered with.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

Who said anything, anything at all → about external interference? (RHETORICAL)

BLUF: The conclusion is that there was no "external interference." The Allied Powers CANNOT interfere with the Allied Powers.

Yes, there was a government, no it had no Arab Component at all during the Mandate Period.

So, are you saying that external interference can negate a state?

(COMMENT)

Before there can be such a thing as external interference, you have to determine "who" is being interfered with?

SUB-QUESTION: Who had the lawful authority over the territories? (RHETORICAL)

• ARTICLE - 16 > Treaty of Lausanne •

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

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

Turkey (a party to the Treaty) renounced all rights and title of the territories to the Allied Powers (parties to the treaty). No Arab contingent was a party to the treaty. The Arab Palestinians were considered to be the inhabitants of the Occupied Enemy Territory under the Administration by the Allied Powers.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Arab Palestinians were considered to be the inhabitants of the Occupied Enemy Territory under the Administration by the Allied Powers.

And after 1924 Palestine was no longer an OET. The inhabitants became citizens of Palestine.

Different ball game.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

OK - One more time.

The Mandate was not the sovereign power. Leaving did not change anything.

(COMMENT)

No one mentioned a "Sovereignty Issue." In fact, without a "government," you cannot have a "state," and without the "state" you cannot have a "sovereignty."

There was nothing illegal about the Mandate Government.

The Arab Palestinians were NOT interfered with.

Most Respectfully,
R

So if a foreign military prevents the establish of a government, does that negate a state?

 

[Hollie]

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

Who said anything, anything at all → about external interference? (RHETORICAL)

BLUF: The conclusion is that there was no "external interference." The Allied Powers CANNOT interfere with the Allied Powers.

Yes, there was a government, no it had no Arab Component at all during the Mandate Period.

So, are you saying that external interference can negate a state?

(COMMENT)

Before there can be such a thing as external interference, you have to determine "who" is being interfered with?

SUB-QUESTION: Who had the lawful authority over the territories? (RHETORICAL)

• ARTICLE - 16 > Treaty of Lausanne •

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

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

Turkey (a party to the Treaty) renounced all rights and title of the territories to the Allied Powers (parties to the treaty). No Arab contingent was a party to the treaty. The Arab Palestinians were considered to be the inhabitants of the Occupied Enemy Territory under the Administration by the Allied Powers.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Arab Palestinians were considered to be the inhabitants of the Occupied Enemy Territory under the Administration by the Allied Powers.

And after 1924 Palestine was no longer an OET. The inhabitants became citizens of Palestine.

Different ball game.

Not a different ball game. The same nonsense about the Treaty of Lausanne you insist created some mythical “country of Pal’istan”.

 

[Shusha]

Before there can be such a thing as external interference, you have to determine "who" is being interfered with?

Turkey renounced all rights and title of the territories ...

P F Tinmore

No one is arguing that Britain had sovereignty.

But the question which needs to be asked and answered is: What happened when the sovereignty of Turkey was terminated in that territory? Who had sovereignty over that territory? Who held the legal relationship with the nationals of the territory? When and how was that sovereignty obtained?

 

[Shusha]

So if a foreign military prevents the establish of a government, does that negate a state?

The whole idea of "negating" a state is nonsensical. States exist. Or they do not. Its like asking if you can "negate" a person by claiming that person didn't come into existence when they are standing right in front of you.

 

[Shusha]

The Treaty of Lausanne created the conditions necessary for a state to come into existence. It did not create any states.

 

[Hollie]

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

Who said anything, anything at all → about external interference? (RHETORICAL)

BLUF: The conclusion is that there was no "external interference." The Allied Powers CANNOT interfere with the Allied Powers.

Yes, there was a government, no it had no Arab Component at all during the Mandate Period.

So, are you saying that external interference can negate a state?

(COMMENT)

Before there can be such a thing as external interference, you have to determine "who" is being interfered with?

SUB-QUESTION: Who had the lawful authority over the territories? (RHETORICAL)

• ARTICLE - 16 > Treaty of Lausanne •

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

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

Turkey (a party to the Treaty) renounced all rights and title of the territories to the Allied Powers (parties to the treaty). No Arab contingent was a party to the treaty. The Arab Palestinians were considered to be the inhabitants of the Occupied Enemy Territory under the Administration by the Allied Powers.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Arab Palestinians were considered to be the inhabitants of the Occupied Enemy Territory under the Administration by the Allied Powers.

And after 1924 Palestine was no longer an OET. The inhabitants became citizens of Palestine.

Different ball game.

The inhabitants did not become citizens of Pal’istan.

Read the Treaty of Lausanne.

Article 31
Persons over eighteen years of age, losing their Turkish nationality and obtaining ipso facto a new nationality under Article 30, shall be entitled within a period of two years from the coming into force of the present Treaty to opt for Turkish nationality.

Did you see the part, “...obtaining ipso facto a new nationality under Article 30”.

What is contained in Article 30.

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

Did you see the part, “...to which such territory is transferred.”?


The Treaty clearly defines that the conditions of Article 30 would precede transferring of a new nationality or assignment of citizenry to a new State.

 

[RoccoR]

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

So if a foreign military prevents the establish of a government, does that negate a state?

(COMMENT)

Yes, no government (for whatever reason) then no state. One is the prerequisite for the other.

BUT, in the case of Palestine (the territory subject to the Mandate), there was no foreign military intervention.

And after 1924 Palestine was no longer an OET. The inhabitants became citizens of Palestine.
Different ball game.

(COMMENT)

The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration ( OETA) passed its responsibilities, for the territory under the Mandate, to the British Civil Administration on 1 JULY 1920 (not 1924). The transfer of the Responsibilities was an outcome to the Argreement set by the Allied Powers in the preceeding April at the San Remo Convention.

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

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

(b)All persons of other than Turkish nationality habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the said date, who shall within two calendar months of the said date make application for Palestinian citizenship in such form and before such officer as may be prescribed by the High Commissioner.
​

The Citizenship Order of 1925 only formalized the intent of the temporary arrangement made in the First Order in Council.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

Who said anything, anything at all → about external interference? (RHETORICAL)

BLUF: The conclusion is that there was no "external interference." The Allied Powers CANNOT interfere with the Allied Powers.

Yes, there was a government, no it had no Arab Component at all during the Mandate Period.

So, are you saying that external interference can negate a state?

(COMMENT)

Before there can be such a thing as external interference, you have to determine "who" is being interfered with?

SUB-QUESTION: Who had the lawful authority over the territories? (RHETORICAL)

• ARTICLE - 16 > Treaty of Lausanne •

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

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

Turkey (a party to the Treaty) renounced all rights and title of the territories to the Allied Powers (parties to the treaty). No Arab contingent was a party to the treaty. The Arab Palestinians were considered to be the inhabitants of the Occupied Enemy Territory under the Administration by the Allied Powers.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Arab Palestinians were considered to be the inhabitants of the Occupied Enemy Territory under the Administration by the Allied Powers.

And after 1924 Palestine was no longer an OET. The inhabitants became citizens of Palestine.

Different ball game.

The inhabitants did not become citizens of Pal’istan.

Read the Treaty of Lausanne.

Article 31
Persons over eighteen years of age, losing their Turkish nationality and obtaining ipso facto a new nationality under Article 30, shall be entitled within a period of two years from the coming into force of the present Treaty to opt for Turkish nationality.

Did you see the part, “...obtaining ipso facto a new nationality under Article 30”.

What is contained in Article 30.

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

Did you see the part, “...to which such territory is transferred.”?


The Treaty clearly defines that the conditions of Article 30 would precede transferring of a new nationality or assignment of citizenry to a new State.

And the Palestinians became citizen of their new state.

I don't see anything confusing.

 

[Shusha]

And the Palestinians became citizen of their new state.

I don't see anything confusing.

Which state was that? When did it come into being? Through what legal treaties or instruments did it come into being? Who governed it? What territory did it hold (in actuality)? What was its defined population? And what interactions did it have with other states?

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

So if a foreign military prevents the establish of a government, does that negate a state?

(COMMENT)

Yes, no government (for whatever reason) then no state. One is the prerequisite for the other.

BUT, in the case of Palestine (the territory subject to the Mandate), there was no foreign military intervention.

And after 1924 Palestine was no longer an OET. The inhabitants became citizens of Palestine.
Different ball game.

(COMMENT)

The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration ( OETA) passed its responsibilities, for the territory under the Mandate, to the British Civil Administration on 1 JULY 1920 (not 1924). The transfer of the Responsibilities was an outcome to the Argreement set by the Allied Powers in the preceeding April at the San Remo Convention.

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

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

(b)All persons of other than Turkish nationality habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the said date, who shall within two calendar months of the said date make application for Palestinian citizenship in such form and before such officer as may be prescribed by the High Commissioner.
​

The Citizenship Order of 1925 only formalized the intent of the temporary arrangement made in the First Order in Council.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Citizenship Order of 1925 only formalized the intent of the temporary arrangement made in the First Order in Council.

Expound.

 

[Hollie]

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

Who said anything, anything at all → about external interference? (RHETORICAL)

BLUF: The conclusion is that there was no "external interference." The Allied Powers CANNOT interfere with the Allied Powers.

Yes, there was a government, no it had no Arab Component at all during the Mandate Period.

So, are you saying that external interference can negate a state?

(COMMENT)

Before there can be such a thing as external interference, you have to determine "who" is being interfered with?

SUB-QUESTION: Who had the lawful authority over the territories? (RHETORICAL)

• ARTICLE - 16 > Treaty of Lausanne •

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

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

Turkey (a party to the Treaty) renounced all rights and title of the territories to the Allied Powers (parties to the treaty). No Arab contingent was a party to the treaty. The Arab Palestinians were considered to be the inhabitants of the Occupied Enemy Territory under the Administration by the Allied Powers.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Arab Palestinians were considered to be the inhabitants of the Occupied Enemy Territory under the Administration by the Allied Powers.

And after 1924 Palestine was no longer an OET. The inhabitants became citizens of Palestine.

Different ball game.

The inhabitants did not become citizens of Pal’istan.

Read the Treaty of Lausanne.

Article 31
Persons over eighteen years of age, losing their Turkish nationality and obtaining ipso facto a new nationality under Article 30, shall be entitled within a period of two years from the coming into force of the present Treaty to opt for Turkish nationality.

Did you see the part, “...obtaining ipso facto a new nationality under Article 30”.

What is contained in Article 30.

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

Did you see the part, “...to which such territory is transferred.”?


The Treaty clearly defines that the conditions of Article 30 would precede transferring of a new nationality or assignment of citizenry to a new State.

And the Palestinians became citizen of their new state.

I don't see anything confusing.

What state did the Arabs-Moslems become citizens of?

Read Article 30 and 31 and advise what territory was transferred to what state which would allow the transfer of citizenship.

Let’s make you a list, shall we?

A. What territory was transferred to what state?
B. What nationality was transferred from the former Turkish subjects when the conditions of Article 30 were not met?