Boycott Israel

[P F Tinmore]

Where did the Jews have their right to self determination?

Well, where does any people have the right to self-determination?

Within their own defined territory.

The Palestinians have the right to self determination in Palestine.

 

[Shusha]

Where did the Jews have their right to self determination?

Well, where does any people have the right to self-determination?

Within their own defined territory.

The Palestinians have the right to self determination in Palestine.

What if there is no defined territory? Who gets to define the territory?

What if there are two groups of people seeking self-determination in the territory -- two distinct groups of "Palestinians" (or three or four)? Does only one of the groups actually get self-determination? Are they compelled to create a joint State? Or can they separate?

Or does only one of them end up with the ultimate "rights"? If so, which one?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Where did the Jews have their right to self determination?

Well, where does any people have the right to self-determination?

Within their own defined territory.

The Palestinians have the right to self determination in Palestine.

What if there is no defined territory? Who gets to define the territory?

What if there are two groups of people seeking self-determination in the territory -- two distinct groups of "Palestinians" (or three or four)? Does only one of the groups actually get self-determination? Are they compelled to create a joint State? Or can they separate?

Or does only one of them end up with the ultimate "rights"? If so, which one?

Article 1
The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications:

a.
a permanent population;

b.
a defined territory;

c.
government; and

d.
capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States - The Faculty of Law

It is interesting that Israel has never had any defined territory.

 

[Hollie]

Where did the Jews have their right to self determination?

Well, where does any people have the right to self-determination?

Within their own defined territory.

The Palestinians have the right to self determination in Palestine.

What if there is no defined territory? Who gets to define the territory?

What if there are two groups of people seeking self-determination in the territory -- two distinct groups of "Palestinians" (or three or four)? Does only one of the groups actually get self-determination? Are they compelled to create a joint State? Or can they separate?

Or does only one of them end up with the ultimate "rights"? If so, which one?

Article 1
The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications:

a.
a permanent population;

b.
a defined territory;

c.
government; and

d.
capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States - The Faculty of Law

It is interesting that Israel has never had any defined territory.

Islamist ideology as delineated in the Hamas Charter would contradict your whining about "International Law". It seems you care nothing about what you cut and pasted except to use it as a bloody truncheon to advance islamo-fascist ideals.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

No matter how it is explained to you, you still deny it.

The Treaty of Lausanne does not mention Palestine. As I said earlier in the discussion, Palestine was not a political subdivision at any level within Ottoman/Turk sovereignty.

P F Tinmore, et al,

It does nothing of the sort.

Thanks for the link.

Oxford Public International Law: Self

This affirms that my positions are correct.

(COMMENT)

I find a few of your positions imbedded here, but I don't find anything that suggest a right was denied or that territorial sovereignty was taken from Hostile Arab Palestinians that represent a threat to the region.

All this is says is that the Arab Palestinians have the right to attempt sovereignty in territory where they are habitual residents. That would not be Israel. And it does not say that the Occupation is illegal, or that the Oslo Accord which granted Israel jurisdiction over Area "C" was illegal.

And, it uses the very same citations that I have been giving you for a couple years now.

Don't try to suggest here, that you have found (or rather I gave you) a source that suggest in any way that the right of self-determination or this source promotes the use of terrorism and violence to achieve what the Hostile Arab Palestinian could not accomplish through the use of peaceful means. It does not. It cites the very same references I have cited in suggesting that the violent nature of the Hostile Arab Palestinians. This violent nature of the Hostile Arab Palestinians believe they have the right and privilege to specifically target civilians, conduct suicide bombing against civilian, hijack civilian airliners, takeover ships at sea, gun-down civilians at will, kidnap and murder civilians, and dozens of other crime that have gone a long way in the establishment of an extensive a past history of psychopathic and criminal behaviors over an extended over a century; past on from generation to generation by the force indoctrination of children.

You might have a valid argument if the Hostile Arab Palestinians had a lily-white reputation for adopting the principles for International Law and friendly relation --- and actually conducted themselves in that manner. But that is not the case. The Hostile Arab Palestinians have used their right of self-determination to establish the most decadent of terrorist supporting nations to ever become a nation on the planet.

So get-off the high horse and look at yourselves in the mirror. You are the people that declared Jihad and took an oath not to recognize or negotiate with the Israelis. You are the people that attack the Olympic Village in Munich. You are the nation of people that pirated a cruise liner and rolled a crippled American into the sea. You are the people that that caused an accident by encouraging children to throw stones and killed Israeli citizen Avraham Asher Hasano. You are the righteous people that killed Israelis and injured fifteen others (all civilians) in a stabbing and shooting attack on a bus in Southern Jerusalem. You are the Palestinians that injured one woman and her baby, and stabbed two other civilians to death in Jerusalem's Old City. And the character references just go on and on. AND you are the Palestinians that set-up firing positions inside a densely populated area to avoid Israeli counter-fires. And you are the Palestinians that will not remove civilians from operational areas. All this in violation of Customary and International Humanitarian Law.

And you are the Hostile Palestinians that day after day attempt to justify the targeting of civilians in their attack against Israelis.

Most Respectfully,
R

WOW, that is quite a page of slime there, Rocco. But let's stick to some simple facts.
-----------------------
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.131

"Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel"
------------------------
That is the beginning. The Palestinians are the people of the place. Everything that happens from then has to hinge on that fact.

(COMMENT)

In terms of Article 30, it says: "nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred." The territory was transferred under Article 16: "Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title." The Mandatory was the Successor Government which the International Court of Justice recognized in several civil law case.

The Allied Powers to which Turkey renounces all rights and title to - assigned the areas surveyed under the Paulet-Newcombe Agreement; known as the Mandate of Palestine. And the citizenship issue was resoled by the Order in Council and the Citizenship Order.

The pro-Palestinian "Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel" is an excellent research paper. However it cherry picks only the concepts that give the Hostile Arab Palestinian the best advantage. It is an opinion.

At the end of the day, in the second decade of the 20th Century, the Allied Powers ruled the day, and their intent was much different then you agenda nearly a century later.

REMEMBER: In the Treaty of Lausanne, when the Ottoman/Turks renounced their rights and title to the Allied Powers, they also said something very powerful:

EXCERPT ARTICLE 16​

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

Most Respectfully,
R

The Treaty of Lausanne does not mention Palestine. As I said earlier in the discussion, Palestine was not a political subdivision at any level within Ottoman/Turk sovereignty.​

Same for all of the new states in the area.

Why the smoke?

They are mentioned by name is what makes them different, and they are political sub division of the Ottoman empire. The only sub sub division was Palestine that did not exist. You are the one creating all the smoke because you are unable to handle the truth

 

[Phoenall]

Phoenall, Billo_Really, et al,

It depends on which time frame you are talking about, and which attempt at self-determination you mention

So this means that Jordan and Egypt could not transfer the land to the Palestinians, and have to negotiate a deal with Israel

Or does this work differently for the Palestinians seeing as it disenfranchises the Jews ?

(COMMENT)

I could make a timeline wherein, the Arab-Palestinians attempted to exercise their right to self-determination. But the outcome was that the Arab Palestinians attempted to establish a permanent relationship with Jordan that failed after an unsuccessful Coup d'etat in Jordan and the development of terrorist safe havens in the West Bank and the emergence of Jihadism.

• Peace Treaty, Article 2, Israel-Egypt (1979) without detriment to any existing right or claim by Palestinians:

The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine, as shown on the map at Annex II, without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip. The Parties recognize this boundary as inviolable. Each will respect the territorial integrity of the other, including their territorial waters and airspace.
​

• Peace Treaty, Article 3, Israel-Jordan (1994) without detriment to any existing right or claim by Palestinians:

1. The international boundary between Israel and Jordan is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I(a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and co-ordinates specified therein.

2. The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure and recognised international boundary between Israel and Jordan, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.
​

Each change to the territory to which the Arab Palestinian lays claim to, was a direct result of some action that either the Arab Palestinians did or did not do. Jordan and Egypt never transferred territory to the Arab-Palestinian. The Treaties are between the Israel and the two States of Egypt and Jordan. The treaties were negotiated in the absence of Arab-Palestinian participation because it was not a party to the original conflict and the West Bank and Gaza Strip were not really stand-alone countries exercising soveriegn control. At the time, the Arab-Palestinian were operating under the Khartoum Resolution.

The Khartoum Resolution, which was an extension of the 1948 Arab Higher Committee commitment, essentially drove the Arab-Palestinian into disenfranchisement in any Peace Negotiation.

Most Respectfully,
R

Each change to the territory to which the Arab Palestinian lays claim to,...​

Whatever happened to the right to territorial integrity?

When did it become an article of faith, and in what treaty did it pass into international law. Anything before that date is not covered and you are blowing smoke again

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, I generally let you go, on misstating this as a "right;" it actually is not a "right." It is a "prohibition."

• Each change to the territory to which the Arab Palestinian lays claim to,...

Whatever happened to the right to territorial integrity?

(REFERENCE)

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
​

(COMMENT)

Chapter 1 Article 2(4) prohibits other members from taking forceful action against another member. You cannot have territorial integrity if you don't have sovereignty over a defined territory.

Article 16 does not grant any territory to the Arab Palestinian, the Ottoman/Turks renounces all rights and title to the territory and agrees that the future of these territory being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

The Arab Palestinians did not have any internationally agreed upon government until 1988, over the territories known as the occupied Palestinian territories. So the Palestinians did not have any territory subject to the protections under Article 2(4). Basically: You cannot protect something you do not have.

Most Respectfully,
R

You cannot have territorial integrity if you don't have sovereignty over a defined territory.​

What happened to the right to independence and sovereignty?

When did it become a right, and under which treaty was it introduced. Anything before that sate is not covered aqnd you are just blowing smoke

 

[Phoenall]

Where did the Jews have their right to self determination?

Well, where does any people have the right to self-determination?

Within their own defined territory.

The Palestinians have the right to self determination in Palestine.

What if there is no defined territory? Who gets to define the territory?

What if there are two groups of people seeking self-determination in the territory -- two distinct groups of "Palestinians" (or three or four)? Does only one of the groups actually get self-determination? Are they compelled to create a joint State? Or can they separate?

Or does only one of them end up with the ultimate "rights"? If so, which one?

Article 1
The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications:

a.
a permanent population;

b.
a defined territory;

c.
government; and

d.
capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States - The Faculty of Law

It is interesting that Israel has never had any defined territory.

Strange that their territory was defined in 1923 as part of the mandate of Palestine. And since when has Israel been a part of the USA, which your link applies to.


See again you blow smoke rather than produce evidence that matters.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Where did the Jews have their right to self determination?

Well, where does any people have the right to self-determination?

Within their own defined territory.

The Palestinians have the right to self determination in Palestine.

What if there is no defined territory? Who gets to define the territory?

What if there are two groups of people seeking self-determination in the territory -- two distinct groups of "Palestinians" (or three or four)? Does only one of the groups actually get self-determination? Are they compelled to create a joint State? Or can they separate?

Or does only one of them end up with the ultimate "rights"? If so, which one?

Article 1
The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications:

a.
a permanent population;

b.
a defined territory;

c.
government; and

d.
capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States - The Faculty of Law

It is interesting that Israel has never had any defined territory.

Strange that their territory was defined in 1923 as part of the mandate of Palestine. And since when has Israel been a part of the USA, which your link applies to.


See again you blow smoke rather than produce evidence that matters.

The Mandate was not a place. It was a temporarily assigned administration. It had no land or borders of its own.

Your statement is false.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

No matter how it is explained to you, you still deny it.

The Treaty of Lausanne does not mention Palestine. As I said earlier in the discussion, Palestine was not a political subdivision at any level within Ottoman/Turk sovereignty.

P F Tinmore, et al,

It does nothing of the sort.

Thanks for the link.

Oxford Public International Law: Self

This affirms that my positions are correct.

(COMMENT)

I find a few of your positions imbedded here, but I don't find anything that suggest a right was denied or that territorial sovereignty was taken from Hostile Arab Palestinians that represent a threat to the region.

All this is says is that the Arab Palestinians have the right to attempt sovereignty in territory where they are habitual residents. That would not be Israel. And it does not say that the Occupation is illegal, or that the Oslo Accord which granted Israel jurisdiction over Area "C" was illegal.

And, it uses the very same citations that I have been giving you for a couple years now.

Don't try to suggest here, that you have found (or rather I gave you) a source that suggest in any way that the right of self-determination or this source promotes the use of terrorism and violence to achieve what the Hostile Arab Palestinian could not accomplish through the use of peaceful means. It does not. It cites the very same references I have cited in suggesting that the violent nature of the Hostile Arab Palestinians. This violent nature of the Hostile Arab Palestinians believe they have the right and privilege to specifically target civilians, conduct suicide bombing against civilian, hijack civilian airliners, takeover ships at sea, gun-down civilians at will, kidnap and murder civilians, and dozens of other crime that have gone a long way in the establishment of an extensive a past history of psychopathic and criminal behaviors over an extended over a century; past on from generation to generation by the force indoctrination of children.

You might have a valid argument if the Hostile Arab Palestinians had a lily-white reputation for adopting the principles for International Law and friendly relation --- and actually conducted themselves in that manner. But that is not the case. The Hostile Arab Palestinians have used their right of self-determination to establish the most decadent of terrorist supporting nations to ever become a nation on the planet.

So get-off the high horse and look at yourselves in the mirror. You are the people that declared Jihad and took an oath not to recognize or negotiate with the Israelis. You are the people that attack the Olympic Village in Munich. You are the nation of people that pirated a cruise liner and rolled a crippled American into the sea. You are the people that that caused an accident by encouraging children to throw stones and killed Israeli citizen Avraham Asher Hasano. You are the righteous people that killed Israelis and injured fifteen others (all civilians) in a stabbing and shooting attack on a bus in Southern Jerusalem. You are the Palestinians that injured one woman and her baby, and stabbed two other civilians to death in Jerusalem's Old City. And the character references just go on and on. AND you are the Palestinians that set-up firing positions inside a densely populated area to avoid Israeli counter-fires. And you are the Palestinians that will not remove civilians from operational areas. All this in violation of Customary and International Humanitarian Law.

And you are the Hostile Palestinians that day after day attempt to justify the targeting of civilians in their attack against Israelis.

Most Respectfully,
R

WOW, that is quite a page of slime there, Rocco. But let's stick to some simple facts.
-----------------------
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.131

"Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel"
------------------------
That is the beginning. The Palestinians are the people of the place. Everything that happens from then has to hinge on that fact.

(COMMENT)

In terms of Article 30, it says: "nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred." The territory was transferred under Article 16: "Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title." The Mandatory was the Successor Government which the International Court of Justice recognized in several civil law case.

The Allied Powers to which Turkey renounces all rights and title to - assigned the areas surveyed under the Paulet-Newcombe Agreement; known as the Mandate of Palestine. And the citizenship issue was resoled by the Order in Council and the Citizenship Order.

The pro-Palestinian "Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel" is an excellent research paper. However it cherry picks only the concepts that give the Hostile Arab Palestinian the best advantage. It is an opinion.

At the end of the day, in the second decade of the 20th Century, the Allied Powers ruled the day, and their intent was much different then you agenda nearly a century later.

REMEMBER: In the Treaty of Lausanne, when the Ottoman/Turks renounced their rights and title to the Allied Powers, they also said something very powerful:

EXCERPT ARTICLE 16​

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

Most Respectfully,
R

The Treaty of Lausanne does not mention Palestine. As I said earlier in the discussion, Palestine was not a political subdivision at any level within Ottoman/Turk sovereignty.​

Same for all of the new states in the area.

Why the smoke?

They are mentioned by name is what makes them different, and they are political sub division of the Ottoman empire. The only sub sub division was Palestine that did not exist. You are the one creating all the smoke because you are unable to handle the truth

Do you have links to that?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Where did the Jews have their right to self determination?

Well, where does any people have the right to self-determination?

Within their own defined territory.

The Palestinians have the right to self determination in Palestine.

What if there is no defined territory? Who gets to define the territory?

What if there are two groups of people seeking self-determination in the territory -- two distinct groups of "Palestinians" (or three or four)? Does only one of the groups actually get self-determination? Are they compelled to create a joint State? Or can they separate?

Or does only one of them end up with the ultimate "rights"? If so, which one?

Article 1
The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications:

a.
a permanent population;

b.
a defined territory;

c.
government; and

d.
capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States - The Faculty of Law

It is interesting that Israel has never had any defined territory.

Islamist ideology as delineated in the Hamas Charter would contradict your whining about "International Law". It seems you care nothing about what you cut and pasted except to use it as a bloody truncheon to advance islamo-fascist ideals.

Hamas is irrelevant to my post.

 

[Phoenall]

Well, where does any people have the right to self-determination?

Within their own defined territory.

The Palestinians have the right to self determination in Palestine.

What if there is no defined territory? Who gets to define the territory?

What if there are two groups of people seeking self-determination in the territory -- two distinct groups of "Palestinians" (or three or four)? Does only one of the groups actually get self-determination? Are they compelled to create a joint State? Or can they separate?

Or does only one of them end up with the ultimate "rights"? If so, which one?

Article 1
The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications:

a.
a permanent population;

b.
a defined territory;

c.
government; and

d.
capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States - The Faculty of Law

It is interesting that Israel has never had any defined territory.

Strange that their territory was defined in 1923 as part of the mandate of Palestine. And since when has Israel been a part of the USA, which your link applies to.


See again you blow smoke rather than produce evidence that matters.

The Mandate was not a place. It was a temporarily assigned administration. It had no land or borders of its own.

Your statement is false.

Once again you mix up the British mandate and the Mandate of Palestine. The British mandate had no authority and was a temporary assigned administration. The mandate of Palestine was a legal entity that entered into international law, and delineated the borders of Jewish Palestine and arab Palestine.

Try educating yourself before making yourself look even more foolish. Palestine was not a nation until 1988, and is still only existing in name only. Israel was accepted as a legal entity in 1949 and is growing day on day.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

No matter how it is explained to you, you still deny it.

The Treaty of Lausanne does not mention Palestine. As I said earlier in the discussion, Palestine was not a political subdivision at any level within Ottoman/Turk sovereignty.

P F Tinmore, et al,

It does nothing of the sort.

(COMMENT)

I find a few of your positions imbedded here, but I don't find anything that suggest a right was denied or that territorial sovereignty was taken from Hostile Arab Palestinians that represent a threat to the region.

All this is says is that the Arab Palestinians have the right to attempt sovereignty in territory where they are habitual residents. That would not be Israel. And it does not say that the Occupation is illegal, or that the Oslo Accord which granted Israel jurisdiction over Area "C" was illegal.

And, it uses the very same citations that I have been giving you for a couple years now.

Don't try to suggest here, that you have found (or rather I gave you) a source that suggest in any way that the right of self-determination or this source promotes the use of terrorism and violence to achieve what the Hostile Arab Palestinian could not accomplish through the use of peaceful means. It does not. It cites the very same references I have cited in suggesting that the violent nature of the Hostile Arab Palestinians. This violent nature of the Hostile Arab Palestinians believe they have the right and privilege to specifically target civilians, conduct suicide bombing against civilian, hijack civilian airliners, takeover ships at sea, gun-down civilians at will, kidnap and murder civilians, and dozens of other crime that have gone a long way in the establishment of an extensive a past history of psychopathic and criminal behaviors over an extended over a century; past on from generation to generation by the force indoctrination of children.

You might have a valid argument if the Hostile Arab Palestinians had a lily-white reputation for adopting the principles for International Law and friendly relation --- and actually conducted themselves in that manner. But that is not the case. The Hostile Arab Palestinians have used their right of self-determination to establish the most decadent of terrorist supporting nations to ever become a nation on the planet.

So get-off the high horse and look at yourselves in the mirror. You are the people that declared Jihad and took an oath not to recognize or negotiate with the Israelis. You are the people that attack the Olympic Village in Munich. You are the nation of people that pirated a cruise liner and rolled a crippled American into the sea. You are the people that that caused an accident by encouraging children to throw stones and killed Israeli citizen Avraham Asher Hasano. You are the righteous people that killed Israelis and injured fifteen others (all civilians) in a stabbing and shooting attack on a bus in Southern Jerusalem. You are the Palestinians that injured one woman and her baby, and stabbed two other civilians to death in Jerusalem's Old City. And the character references just go on and on. AND you are the Palestinians that set-up firing positions inside a densely populated area to avoid Israeli counter-fires. And you are the Palestinians that will not remove civilians from operational areas. All this in violation of Customary and International Humanitarian Law.

And you are the Hostile Palestinians that day after day attempt to justify the targeting of civilians in their attack against Israelis.

Most Respectfully,
R

WOW, that is quite a page of slime there, Rocco. But let's stick to some simple facts.
-----------------------
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.131

"Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel"
------------------------
That is the beginning. The Palestinians are the people of the place. Everything that happens from then has to hinge on that fact.

(COMMENT)

In terms of Article 30, it says: "nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred." The territory was transferred under Article 16: "Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title." The Mandatory was the Successor Government which the International Court of Justice recognized in several civil law case.

The Allied Powers to which Turkey renounces all rights and title to - assigned the areas surveyed under the Paulet-Newcombe Agreement; known as the Mandate of Palestine. And the citizenship issue was resoled by the Order in Council and the Citizenship Order.

The pro-Palestinian "Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel" is an excellent research paper. However it cherry picks only the concepts that give the Hostile Arab Palestinian the best advantage. It is an opinion.

At the end of the day, in the second decade of the 20th Century, the Allied Powers ruled the day, and their intent was much different then you agenda nearly a century later.

REMEMBER: In the Treaty of Lausanne, when the Ottoman/Turks renounced their rights and title to the Allied Powers, they also said something very powerful:

EXCERPT ARTICLE 16​

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

Most Respectfully,
R

The Treaty of Lausanne does not mention Palestine. As I said earlier in the discussion, Palestine was not a political subdivision at any level within Ottoman/Turk sovereignty.​

Same for all of the new states in the area.

Why the smoke?

They are mentioned by name is what makes them different, and they are political sub division of the Ottoman empire. The only sub sub division was Palestine that did not exist. You are the one creating all the smoke because you are unable to handle the truth

Do you have links to that?

Try the treaty of Lausanne

 

[Phoenall]

Well, where does any people have the right to self-determination?

Within their own defined territory.

The Palestinians have the right to self determination in Palestine.

What if there is no defined territory? Who gets to define the territory?

What if there are two groups of people seeking self-determination in the territory -- two distinct groups of "Palestinians" (or three or four)? Does only one of the groups actually get self-determination? Are they compelled to create a joint State? Or can they separate?

Or does only one of them end up with the ultimate "rights"? If so, which one?

Article 1
The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications:

a.
a permanent population;

b.
a defined territory;

c.
government; and

d.
capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States - The Faculty of Law

It is interesting that Israel has never had any defined territory.

Islamist ideology as delineated in the Hamas Charter would contradict your whining about "International Law". It seems you care nothing about what you cut and pasted except to use it as a bloody truncheon to advance islamo-fascist ideals.

Hamas is irrelevant to my post.

Anything that shows you are wrong becomes irrelevant to you as you cant stand being wrong. And you once again invent international laws that don't exist

 

[P F Tinmore]

Within their own defined territory.

The Palestinians have the right to self determination in Palestine.

What if there is no defined territory? Who gets to define the territory?

What if there are two groups of people seeking self-determination in the territory -- two distinct groups of "Palestinians" (or three or four)? Does only one of the groups actually get self-determination? Are they compelled to create a joint State? Or can they separate?

Or does only one of them end up with the ultimate "rights"? If so, which one?

Article 1
The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications:

a.
a permanent population;

b.
a defined territory;

c.
government; and

d.
capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States - The Faculty of Law

It is interesting that Israel has never had any defined territory.

Islamist ideology as delineated in the Hamas Charter would contradict your whining about "International Law". It seems you care nothing about what you cut and pasted except to use it as a bloody truncheon to advance islamo-fascist ideals.

Hamas is irrelevant to my post.

Anything that shows you are wrong becomes irrelevant to you as you cant stand being wrong. And you once again invent international laws that don't exist

What does Hamas have to do with the fact that Israel has never had any defined territory?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This whole line of discussion on the defined territory is flawed on two counts.

What does Hamas have to do with the fact that Israel has never had any defined territory?

(COMMENT)

• It suggests that the Armistice Lined are not demarcations protected in the same way as borders (a line like a border but not a negotiated border).

Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations --- EXCERPT: Solemnly proclaims the following principles:

The principle that States shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations

Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as prejudicing the positions of the parties concerned with regard to the status and effects of such lines under their special regimes or as affecting their temporary character.​

• It suggest that a country that has an Armistice Line as a demarcation is not a true country.

Franco-German Armistice : June 1940
Armistice Agreement with Italy; September 1943
Armistice Agreement with Bulgaria; October 28, 1944
Armistice Agreement with Rumania; September 12, 1944
Armistice Agreement with Hungary; January 20, 1945
Armistice Agreement with Israel; 1949
Armistice Agreements with Korea; July 1953
​

With minor variations, Bulgaria, France, German, Hungary, Korea, and Rumania all exist today; with no major disputes concerning borders.

An Armistice Line does not (repeat) does not affect the integrity of a Nation. The concept of defined territory is that territory which can be defined as under its sovereign control. It has nothing at all to do with the political status or the origin of any given line. Korea has an active Armistice Line, it does not mean that Korea did not have a territory that is defined by South Korean sovereignty. Until the regime of North Korea is dissolved (not in my lifetime) the two Koreas will defined by the Armistice Line.

(THE QUESTION OF PALESTINE)

How does the State of Palestine define its territory?

• If it says all the territory to which the former Mandate applied; then it is a false claim. The State of Palestine cannot claim that which has never been under their sovereign control and which is not now under their sovereign control.

• If it claims the territory known as the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt), then they have a false claim again. While the Islamic Resistance Movement may have control over the Gaza Strip, it does not have control over the West Bank. While the Palestinian Authority can claim control over Area "A" and limited control over Area "B" --- it cannot claim control over Area "C" or the Gaza Strip.

• If the Palestinians claim that the Gaza Strip and West Bank are oPt; then that means that they never established control over any of the territory and thus, Israel has "effective control" over the oPt, and boundary of Israel. Thus the State of Palestine has not territory over which it can define its territory.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

What if there is no defined territory? Who gets to define the territory?

What if there are two groups of people seeking self-determination in the territory -- two distinct groups of "Palestinians" (or three or four)? Does only one of the groups actually get self-determination? Are they compelled to create a joint State? Or can they separate?

Or does only one of them end up with the ultimate "rights"? If so, which one?

Article 1
The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications:

a.
a permanent population;

b.
a defined territory;

c.
government; and

d.
capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States - The Faculty of Law

It is interesting that Israel has never had any defined territory.

Islamist ideology as delineated in the Hamas Charter would contradict your whining about "International Law". It seems you care nothing about what you cut and pasted except to use it as a bloody truncheon to advance islamo-fascist ideals.

Hamas is irrelevant to my post.

Anything that shows you are wrong becomes irrelevant to you as you cant stand being wrong. And you once again invent international laws that don't exist

What does Hamas have to do with the fact that Israel has never had any defined territory?

LoN mandate of patestine ( as opposed to the British mandate ) delineates the borders of the Jewish National home, so making your claim false. Do you want to tell the UN that they are housing lies in their vaults ? And then tell the ICC/ICJ that they are basing their judgements on false premise and lies.


Now produce the UN resolution that claims Israel does not have a defined territory, and you destroy the claims of every nation in the M.E.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This whole line of discussion on the defined territory is flawed on two counts.

What does Hamas have to do with the fact that Israel has never had any defined territory?

(COMMENT)

• It suggests that the Armistice Lined are not demarcations protected in the same way as borders (a line like a border but not a negotiated border).

Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations --- EXCERPT: Solemnly proclaims the following principles:

The principle that States shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations

Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as prejudicing the positions of the parties concerned with regard to the status and effects of such lines under their special regimes or as affecting their temporary character.​

• It suggest that a country that has an Armistice Line as a demarcation is not a true country.

Franco-German Armistice : June 1940
Armistice Agreement with Italy; September 1943
Armistice Agreement with Bulgaria; October 28, 1944
Armistice Agreement with Rumania; September 12, 1944
Armistice Agreement with Hungary; January 20, 1945
Armistice Agreement with Israel; 1949
Armistice Agreements with Korea; July 1953
​

With minor variations, Bulgaria, France, German, Hungary, Korea, and Rumania all exist today; with no major disputes concerning borders.

An Armistice Line does not (repeat) does not affect the integrity of a Nation. The concept of defined territory is that territory which can be defined as under its sovereign control. It has nothing at all to do with the political status or the origin of any given line. Korea has an active Armistice Line, it does not mean that Korea did not have a territory that is defined by South Korean sovereignty. Until the regime of North Korea is dissolved (not in my lifetime) the two Koreas will defined by the Armistice Line.

(THE QUESTION OF PALESTINE)

How does the State of Palestine define its territory?

• If it says all the territory to which the former Mandate applied; then it is a false claim. The State of Palestine cannot claim that which has never been under their sovereign control and which is not now under their sovereign control.

• If it claims the territory known as the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt), then they have a false claim again. While the Islamic Resistance Movement may have control over the Gaza Strip, it does not have control over the West Bank. While the Palestinian Authority can claim control over Area "A" and limited control over Area "B" --- it cannot claim control over Area "C" or the Gaza Strip.

• If the Palestinians claim that the Gaza Strip and West Bank are oPt; then that means that they never established control over any of the territory and thus, Israel has "effective control" over the oPt, and boundary of Israel. Thus the State of Palestine has not territory over which it can define its territory.

Most Respectfully,
R

WOW. contradictions, assumptions, and irrelevance.

Could you clean this up so I can respond?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

There are no contradictions and assumptions. It is certainly not irrelevant. And there is nothing for

WOW. contradictions, assumptions, and irrelevance.
Could you clean this up so I can respond?

(COMMENT)

• The first part explains the importance of understanding the status and protections of the Armistice Lines; and those that were replaces by negotiated borders.
• The second part gives examples of Armistice Lines and the importance of Armistice Lines and the Maintenance of Sovereignty.

∆ The control over territory and sovereignty maintained by Israel.
∆ The lack of control and sovereignty over any territory by the Arab Palestinians.
∆ The consequences of the various conditions.
​

• If the Palestinians have some claim and some control over any part of the territory, its claims of being occupied are false.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This whole line of discussion on the defined territory is flawed on two counts.

What does Hamas have to do with the fact that Israel has never had any defined territory?

(COMMENT)

• It suggests that the Armistice Lined are not demarcations protected in the same way as borders (a line like a border but not a negotiated border).

Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations --- EXCERPT: Solemnly proclaims the following principles:

The principle that States shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations

Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as prejudicing the positions of the parties concerned with regard to the status and effects of such lines under their special regimes or as affecting their temporary character.​

• It suggest that a country that has an Armistice Line as a demarcation is not a true country.

Franco-German Armistice : June 1940
Armistice Agreement with Italy; September 1943
Armistice Agreement with Bulgaria; October 28, 1944
Armistice Agreement with Rumania; September 12, 1944
Armistice Agreement with Hungary; January 20, 1945
Armistice Agreement with Israel; 1949
Armistice Agreements with Korea; July 1953
​

With minor variations, Bulgaria, France, German, Hungary, Korea, and Rumania all exist today; with no major disputes concerning borders.

An Armistice Line does not (repeat) does not affect the integrity of a Nation. The concept of defined territory is that territory which can be defined as under its sovereign control. It has nothing at all to do with the political status or the origin of any given line. Korea has an active Armistice Line, it does not mean that Korea did not have a territory that is defined by South Korean sovereignty. Until the regime of North Korea is dissolved (not in my lifetime) the two Koreas will defined by the Armistice Line.

(THE QUESTION OF PALESTINE)

How does the State of Palestine define its territory?

• If it says all the territory to which the former Mandate applied; then it is a false claim. The State of Palestine cannot claim that which has never been under their sovereign control and which is not now under their sovereign control.

• If it claims the territory known as the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt), then they have a false claim again. While the Islamic Resistance Movement may have control over the Gaza Strip, it does not have control over the West Bank. While the Palestinian Authority can claim control over Area "A" and limited control over Area "B" --- it cannot claim control over Area "C" or the Gaza Strip.

• If the Palestinians claim that the Gaza Strip and West Bank are oPt; then that means that they never established control over any of the territory and thus, Israel has "effective control" over the oPt, and boundary of Israel. Thus the State of Palestine has not territory over which it can define its territory.

Most Respectfully,
R

An Armistice Line does not (repeat) does not affect the integrity of a Nation.​

Indeed. Read those armistice agreements again.