I don't remember the Treaty of Lausanne or ''several courts'' inventing any ''country of Pal'istan''.
A decade of the same nonsense claim.
Boycott Israel
- Thread starter fairandbalanced
- Start date
A decade of the same nonsense claim.
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 86,341
- 4,873
- 1,815
Decisions of international and national tribunals
The U.S. State Department Digest of International Law says that the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne provided for the application of the principles of state succession to the "A" Mandates. The Treaty of Versailles (1920) provisionally recognized the former Ottoman communities as independent nations. It also required Germany to recognize the disposition of the former Ottoman territories and to recognize the new states laid down within their boundaries. The Treaty of Lausanne required the newly created states that acquired the territory to pay annuities on the Ottoman public debt, and to assume responsibility for the administration of concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans. A dispute regarding the status of the territories was settled by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. It was decided that Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties. In its Judgment No. 5, The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, the Permanent Court of International Justice also decided that Palestine was responsible as the successor state for concessions granted by Ottoman authorities. The Courts of Palestine and Great Britain decided that title to the properties shown on the Ottoman Civil list had been ceded to the government of Palestine as an allied successor state.[25]
Palestine: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia
What do you have that says that Palestine is not a state?
Links?
What newly created states?Decisions of international and national tribunals
The U.S. State Department Digest of International Law says that the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne provided for the application of the principles of state succession to the "A" Mandates. The Treaty of Versailles (1920) provisionally recognized the former Ottoman communities as independent nations. It also required Germany to recognize the disposition of the former Ottoman territories and to recognize the new states laid down within their boundaries. The Treaty of Lausanne required the newly created states that acquired the territory to pay annuities on the Ottoman public debt, and to assume responsibility for the administration of concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans. A dispute regarding the status of the territories was settled by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. It was decided that Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties. In its Judgment No. 5, The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, the Permanent Court of International Justice also decided that Palestine was responsible as the successor state for concessions granted by Ottoman authorities. The Courts of Palestine and Great Britain decided that title to the properties shown on the Ottoman Civil list had been ceded to the government of Palestine as an allied successor state.[25]
Palestine: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
What do you have that says that Palestine is not a state?
Links?
Something on youtube perhaps?
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 86,341
- 4,873
- 1,815
I can see you're angry and emotive. I'm still curious how the treaty of Lausanne invented your claimed ''country of Pal'istan'' when no such action is ever asserted in that Treaty.
Your name-calling does nothing to support your nonsense claims.
Nothing yet on those ''new states'' you claim were invented?
Can you name those ''new states''?
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 86,341
- 4,873
- 1,815
RoccoR
Gold Member
RE: Boycot Israel
SUBTOPIC: *****
⁜→ P F Tinmre, et al,
The League of Nations (LoN) did not create any countries. Not a single one. And the Treaty of Lausanne did not create any countries.
You are so confused. The LoN is a collection of foreign powers. All this time, I just do not know how you could get this wrong. From the time of the San Remo conference until 15 May 1948, "Palestine" meant the legal entity the British used as a framework for the Administration of the territory. It was not self-governing.
The very first paragraph in the Citizenship Law:
AT THE COURT AT BUCKINGHAM PALACE, The 24 day of July, 1925.
Present
THE KING’S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY.
WHEREAS by treaty, capitulation, grant, usage, sufferance and other lawful means His Majesty has power and jurisdiction within Palestine.
You change something in the conversation/discussion. We were not talking about native-born Israelis. We were, in essence, talking about those demanding the "Right of Return." We may have talked about a number of questions. But we were not debating the nationality or citizenship of some who had their feet inside the borders of Israel, at the time Israel was created (mid-night 14/15 May 1948) through self-determination.
We were essentially talking about those Arab Palestinians who "demand" a "Right of Return" and argue that they have that RoR by virtue of their birth anywhere in the territory, formerly under the Mandate for Palestine. Some actually claim that the State of Israel was created illegally and thus does not exist. Well, they can argue that all day long, every day, and it will not promote any progress. That ship has sailed on that argument.
If we are talking about the landscape of today and the permission to enter the State of Israel. That is (entirely) a domestic question and the Israelis set the condition, criteria, and standards for entry. The Israeli can change those requirements tomorrow and it would be legal. But international law does not apply to domestic issues. Secondly, the 1925 Citizenship Order becomes a historical document once the Mandate was terminated. The nine Core International Human Rights Instruments and their monitoring bodies form the basic framework. Yes there are Conventions relating to Stateless, Refugees, and those within the Geneva Conventions.
Most Respectfully,
R
SUBTOPIC: *****
⁜→ P F Tinmre, et al,
The League of Nations (LoN) did not create any countries. Not a single one. And the Treaty of Lausanne did not create any countries.
You are so confused. The LoN is a collection of foreign powers. All this time, I just do not know how you could get this wrong. From the time of the San Remo conference until 15 May 1948, "Palestine" meant the legal entity the British used as a framework for the Administration of the territory. It was not self-governing.
(REFERENCE)
The very first paragraph in the Citizenship Law:
AT THE COURT AT BUCKINGHAM PALACE, The 24 day of July, 1925.
Present
THE KING’S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY.
WHEREAS by treaty, capitulation, grant, usage, sufferance and other lawful means His Majesty has power and jurisdiction within Palestine.
(COMMENT)
You change something in the conversation/discussion. We were not talking about native-born Israelis. We were, in essence, talking about those demanding the "Right of Return." We may have talked about a number of questions. But we were not debating the nationality or citizenship of some who had their feet inside the borders of Israel, at the time Israel was created (mid-night 14/15 May 1948) through self-determination.
We were essentially talking about those Arab Palestinians who "demand" a "Right of Return" and argue that they have that RoR by virtue of their birth anywhere in the territory, formerly under the Mandate for Palestine. Some actually claim that the State of Israel was created illegally and thus does not exist. Well, they can argue that all day long, every day, and it will not promote any progress. That ship has sailed on that argument.
If we are talking about the landscape of today and the permission to enter the State of Israel. That is (entirely) a domestic question and the Israelis set the condition, criteria, and standards for entry. The Israeli can change those requirements tomorrow and it would be legal. But international law does not apply to domestic issues. Secondly, the 1925 Citizenship Order becomes a historical document once the Mandate was terminated. The nine Core International Human Rights Instruments and their monitoring bodies form the basic framework. Yes there are Conventions relating to Stateless, Refugees, and those within the Geneva Conventions.
Most Respectfully,
R
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 86,341
- 4,873
- 1,815
There is the false premise that you use to base your conclusion. The Mandate had no sovereignty, territory, or borders. It was a trustee working in the behalf of. and in the best interest of. the people.
The existence of Palestine did not depend on the existence of the Mandate.
RoccoR
Gold Member
RE: Boycot Israel
SUBTOPIC: *****
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
This is a continuation of a discussion from 21 OCT 2021.
No. That is not a premise at all. I never argued that the Mandate had territory. BUT! I use the exact same language as the League of Nations (LoN) and Allied Powers used. I think you are having a reading, interpretation, and comprehension problem.
(COMMENT)
The existence of "Palestine" was ever at issue. And the existence of "Palestine" was not part of the discussion in the recent exchange of views. However, it appears that you might misunderstand what "Palestine" means relative to the evolution of the term through the 20th Century and early 21st Century.
More than two-Millenium ago, "Palestine" was approximated something like this.
≈1918 to 1920: Tactically the term Palestine was a territory included in the Occupied Enemy Territory:
Immediately prior to the end of the Great War ≈ Prior to 1920: Palestine was an indeterminate territory in the Levant that extended into:
1920 to 1948 "Palestine" was a legal entity but it is not a sovereign state, and considered a territory administered under mandate by United Kingdom, which was entirely responsible both for its internal administration and for its foreign affairs.
After the 15th May 1948, "Palestine" continued to be a legal entity but not a sovereign state because it was not immediately self-governing. This was an outcome of their own choice.
For various reasons, the lines of control and administration shifted to and fro. but what was clear up to early December 2012 was stated best by the Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs in a Memorandum.
This is a thumbnail or a thumbnail or a thumbnail view of the timeline. But as you can plainly see, prior to 1998 the name "Palestine Liberation Organization" (PLO) was used, and it was only then that "Palestine" replaced the usage of PLO.
All this has been discussed extensively several times before now.
OK, I am off-the soap box now.
Most Respectfully,
R
SUBTOPIC: *****
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
This is a continuation of a discussion from 21 OCT 2021.
(COMMENT)
No. That is not a premise at all. I never argued that the Mandate had territory. BUT! I use the exact same language as the League of Nations (LoN) and Allied Powers used. I think you are having a reading, interpretation, and comprehension problem.
(COMMENT)
The existence of "Palestine" was ever at issue. And the existence of "Palestine" was not part of the discussion in the recent exchange of views. However, it appears that you might misunderstand what "Palestine" means relative to the evolution of the term through the 20th Century and early 21st Century.
More than two-Millenium ago, "Palestine" was approximated something like this.
≈1918 to 1920: Tactically the term Palestine was a territory included in the Occupied Enemy Territory:
Immediately prior to the end of the Great War ≈ Prior to 1920: Palestine was an indeterminate territory in the Levant that extended into:
For various reasons, the lines of control and administration shifted to and fro. but what was clear up to early December 2012 was stated best by the Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs in a Memorandum.
All this has been discussed extensively several times before now.
OK, I am off-the soap box now.
Most Respectfully,
R
As it always happens, you fail to identify where there is any action within the Treaty of Lausanne inventing your imagined ''country of Pal'istan''.
You fail to identify any ''new states'' invented by that Treaty.
There is the false premise that you use to base your conclusion.
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 86,341
- 4,873
- 1,815
Palestine is always discussed in foreign political terms. Nobody wants to discuss legal terms. People talk about the West Bank and Gaza, Why? Palestine's international borders have not changed since 1924. When the Palestinians teach that fact they get blamed for wanting to destroy Israel. "From the river to the sea" brings out a flurry of antisemite cards. Where is Israel? It is defined by not borders armistice lines inside Palestine's borders. Why does nobody mention that?RE: Boycot Israel
SUBTOPIC: *****
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
This is a continuation of a discussion from 21 OCT 2021.
(COMMENT)
No. That is not a premise at all. I never argued that the Mandate had territory. BUT! I use the exact same language as the League of Nations (LoN) and Allied Powers used. I think you are having a reading, interpretation, and comprehension problem.
View attachment 591304
(COMMENT)
The existence of "Palestine" was ever at issue. And the existence of "Palestine" was not part of the discussion in the recent exchange of views. However, it appears that you might misunderstand what "Palestine" means relative to the evolution of the term through the 20th Century and early 21st Century.
More than two-Millenium ago, "Palestine" was approximated something like this.
View attachment 591314
≈1918 to 1920: Tactically the term Palestine was a territory included in the Occupied Enemy Territory:
Immediately prior to the end of the Great War ≈ Prior to 1920: Palestine was an indeterminate territory in the Levant that extended into:
1920 to 1948 "Palestine" was a legal entity but it is not a sovereign state, and considered a territory administered under mandate by United Kingdom, which was entirely responsible both for its internal administration and for its foreign affairs.
After the 15th May 1948, "Palestine" continued to be a legal entity but not a sovereign state because it was not immediately self-governing. This was an outcome of their own choice.
For various reasons, the lines of control and administration shifted to and fro. but what was clear up to early December 2012 was stated best by the Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs in a Memorandum.
This is a thumbnail or a thumbnail or a thumbnail view of the timeline. But as you can plainly see, prior to 1998 the name "Palestine Liberation Organization" (PLO) was used, and it was only then that "Palestine" replaced the usage of PLO.
All this has been discussed extensively several times before now.
OK, I am off-the soap box now.
Most Respectfully,
R
1924. That's when the ''country of Pal'istan'' was invented, right?
Can you show us where in the Treaty of Lausanne there is any reference to invention of your Magical Kingdom of ''Pal'istan'?
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
Israel does.
More often, Palestine is discussed in Islamic terrorist terms.
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 86,341
- 4,873
- 1,815
That is a foreign political term.
It is. One would not expect a totalitarian, militaristic politico-religious ideology to adhere to western ideals ushered forth during the reform and enlightenment. Islamism shows no ability to reconcile its retrograde ideology with the liberties and rights of the modern age.
Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 73,243
- 12,704
- 2,290
( What Muslims have to put up with in order to follow Islamic hatred of Jews )
From Iran's International Quran News Agency:
By entering the tournaments, they are agreeing that it is an honor to compete in the tournaments to begin with even with Israeli players.
Choosing only to withdraw if they happen to draw an Israeli opponent shows that there is nothing honorable or about withdrawal - it is pure cowardice.
Israel doesn't suffer from the "snub." An Israeli youth will now reach the finals, guaranteed at least second place.
elderofziyon.blogspot.com
From Iran's International Quran News Agency:
If the Arab nations that would refuse to play against Israeli opponents wanted to be consistent, they shouldn't enter any tournaments that allow Israeli players to begin with. They should boycott them because they are "normalizing" with Israel.
Muhammad al-Awadi withdrew from the J4 Dubai Tournament 2022 that is taking place in the UAE city from January 17 to 22, 2022, Al-Alam reported.
Social media activists lauded the move as a rejection of normalization of ties with the Zionist occupiers of Palestine.
They also regarded it as being in line with Kuwait’s support for the Palestinian cause.
Yusuf al-Sanad, a member of the Persian Gulf Scholars Union, wrote n Twitter that the Kuwaiti hero announced his withdrawal from the competition in solidarity with the people of Palestine and in rejction of the Zionist regime’s terrorism.
Osama al-Shaheen, a member of Kuwait’s parliament also tweeted, “Greetings and thanks to the Kuwaiti hero Muhammad al-Awadi for his refusal to normalize sports competition with the Zionists.”
The Youths for Al-Quds Society wrote on its Instagram page that normalization with the Israeli regime is an act of treachery and that the Kuwaiti tennis player’s move is worthy of praise.
By entering the tournaments, they are agreeing that it is an honor to compete in the tournaments to begin with even with Israeli players.
Choosing only to withdraw if they happen to draw an Israeli opponent shows that there is nothing honorable or about withdrawal - it is pure cowardice.
Israel doesn't suffer from the "snub." An Israeli youth will now reach the finals, guaranteed at least second place.
Arabs and Iran praise cowardice as Kuwaiti junior tennis player refuses to compete against Israeli UPDATE: Fake news)
Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.
elderofziyon.blogspot.com
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 86,341
- 4,873
- 1,815
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Failed asylum seeker families to be offered up to £40k to leave UK- Started by Captain Caveman
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
House GOP Leaders Ask Tony Gonzales To Drop Reelection Bid
- Started by 0311
- Replies: 2
