Can Palestinian's and Israeli's ever be friends?

[Billo_Really]

1. So who are those indigenous people of Palestine if Jews, Saudis, Egyptians and Syrians in Palestine aren't?

Who are those indigenous people? They are the people who had been living there indigenously. What kind of a dumbass question is that? People were living in that area for generations. It doesn't matter "who" they were, they're the indigenous population and they have the right to self-determination. A right that was denied to the non-Jewish residents.

2. Yeah 'fair and democratic'..say when were the last elections?

I hear you on that. It's not cool. But the one they were elected in, was.

3. Remind me this time Arab-Israelis are responsible for what?

Arab-Israeli's are responsible for the same things Jewish-Israeli's are. And that is everything their government does.

4. I got it 'f**k everyone'...balestinians, Israelis...
I don't know about some magic emperor but Your ill motivation is for everyone to see.

You've never heard that story?

The Emperor's New Clothes​

It's a pretty good story, if you got time to read it. It's not that long at all.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh you're so close; but, wrong.

There are several but here is one to chew on.

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

The Avalon Project : UN General Assembly Resolution 181

All Palestinians whose normal residence was in the territory that became Israel would become Israeli citizens. This reiterates international law so it is true whether there is a resolution 181 or not. The criterion is normal residence not physical presence so that would include refugees.

(COMMENT)

First off: Nowhere in Chapter 3 --- Citizenship, international conventions and financial obligations, A/RES/181(II), does it stipulate that "criterion is normal residence not physical presence?" (Does it really say that? Or did you interpret that?) In fact the words "normal or habitual" are not used in this non-binding resolution. Although the intent may include your assumption. Below, I demonstrate how Israel meets this requirement.

More importantly, there is no international citizenship or nationality laws prior to:

NATIONALITY, STATELESSNESS, ASYLUM AND REFUGEES​

• • Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness
  • Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons
  • Convention relating to the Status of Refugees
  • Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees
  • Declaration on the Human Rights of Individuals who are not nationals of the country in which they live

What the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) A/RES/217(III), says is:

Article 15.

(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
​

The European Convention on Nationality (Strasbourg, 6.XI.1997)(ECN) is a bit more definitive.

Chapter VI – State succession and nationality

Article 18 – Principles

1. 
   
   • In matters of nationality in cases of State succession, each State Party concerned shall respect the principles of the rule of law, the rules concerning human rights and the principles contained in Articles 4 and 5 of this Convention and in paragraph 2 of this article, in particular in order to avoid statelessness.
   • In deciding on the granting or the retention of nationality in cases of State succession, each State Party concerned shall take account in particular of:
     1. the genuine and effective link of the person concerned with the State;
     2. the habitual residence of the person concerned at the time of State succession;
     3. the will of the person concerned;
     4. the territorial origin of the person concerned.
   • Where the acquisition of nationality is subject to the loss of a foreign nationality, the provisions of Article 16 of this Convention shall apply.

Article 19 – Settlement by international agreement

In cases of State succession, States Parties concerned shall endeavour to regulate matters relating to nationality by agreement amongst themselves and, where applicable, in their relationship with other States concerned. Such agreements shall respect the principles and rules contained or referred to in this chapter.

Article 20 – Principles concerning non-nationals

1. • Each State Party shall respect the following principles:
     1. nationals of a predecessor State habitually resident in the territory over which sovereignty is transferred to a successor State and who have not acquired its nationality shall have the right to remain in that State;
     2. persons referred to in sub-paragraph a shall enjoy equality of treatment with nationals of the successor State in relation to social and economic rights.
   • Each State Party may exclude persons considered under paragraph 1 from employment in the public service involving the exercise of sovereign powers.

However, the ECN was written in 1997 and is not relevant as a legal precedent prior to that time; including the Arab-Israel Wars of 1948, 1967, and 1973.

Second, the rule of thumb for Refugees is very different than you assert. CERI is not "law". It is and Administrative Guide. Most Palestinians registered under CERI are not true refugees, living off the dole.

Third, no one in the West Bank or Gaza Strip is either a stateless person or a true refugee. And Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza Strip who have acquired a new nationality (that of the State of Palestine) or held a previous nationality (citizen of the Hashemite Kingdom), and enjoyed the protection of that nation, is well beyond the consideration of Israel.

Fourth: (I am not an expert of Israeli Law.) But my understanding is that current Israeli Citizenship and Nationality Law cover:

• (a) A person who, immediately before the establishment of the State, was a Palestinian citizen and who does not become a Israel national under section 2, shall become an Israel national with effect from the day of the establishment of the State if -
  • (1) he was registered on the 4th Adar, 5712 (1st March 1952) as an inhabitant under the Registration of Inhabitants Ordinance, 5709-1949(2); and
  • (2) he is an inhabitant of Israel on the day of the coming into force of this Law; and
  • (3) he was in Israel, or in an area which became Israel territory after the establishment of the State, from the day of the establishment of the State to the day of the coming into force of this Law, or entered Israel legally during that period.
• (b) A person born after the establishment of the State who is an inhabitant of Israel on the day of the coming into force of this Law, and whose father or mother becomes an Israel national under subsection (a), shall become an Israel national with effect from the day of his birth.

I believe that NATIONALITY LAW, 5712-1952* PART ONE: ACQUISITION OF NATIONALITY conforms to the general stipulations under the UDHR A/RES/217(III), pertaining to Nationality.

Most Respectfully,
R

It's getting pretty smoky in here. We need to clear the air.
-----------------

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.

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel​

------------------
Then resolution 181 reiterates this same principle.

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

The Avalon Project : UN General Assembly Resolution 181​

The question was if Israel is violating resolution 181?

Now, if both sides agreed to resolution 181 it would be a valid treaty of cession and Israel would be in violation of this treaty obligation.

• Cession, is the transfer of territory usually by treaty from one state to another.​

Rocco claims that resolution 181 is valid. I say it is not.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The status of "indigenous people" confers no special rights of privileges. In fact the UN says:

• "Considering the diversity of indigenous peoples, an official definition of “indigenous” has not been adopted by any UN-system body."

1. So who are those indigenous people of Palestine...​

There is no debate. International law, the Treaty of Lausanne, and the Palestinian citizenship order all say the same thing.

(COMMENT)

They may very well. But that has nothing to do with being a citizen of Israel or the State of Palestine (alla 1988).

Most Respectfully,
R

Indeed, the rights of the indigenous people apply to territories that were conquered before it was illegal to do so. That does not apply to Palestine.

 

[rylah]

1. So who are those indigenous people of Palestine if Jews, Saudis, Egyptians and Syrians in Palestine aren't?

Who are those indigenous people? They are the people who had been living there indigenously. What kind of a dumbass question is that? People were living in that area for generations. It doesn't matter "who" they were, they're the indigenous population and they have the right to self-determination. A right that was denied to the non-Jewish residents.

2. Yeah 'fair and democratic'..say when were the last elections?

I hear you on that. It's not cool. But the one they were elected in, was.

3. Remind me this time Arab-Israelis are responsible for what?

Arab-Israeli's are responsible for the same things Jewish-Israeli's are. And that is everything their government does.

4. I got it 'f**k everyone'...balestinians, Israelis...
I don't know about some magic emperor but Your ill motivation is for everyone to see.

You've never heard that story?

The Emperor's New Clothes​

It's a pretty good story, if you got time to read it. It's not that long at all.

1. A simple question, yet so much air and no answer.
Non Jews in Israel have full citizenship, what stops those 'indigenous'
to determine themselves? Who are they? How did they end up in Palestine and dd thy have any distinct palestinian culture and religion?

2.This elections between the two gangs started with violence, continues with it and is the reason why they didn't have elections since.





3.This is the the exact argument used by terrorists to justify murders of civilians in clubs,hospitals, buses and so on... You're a sheeple thinking You have rights and control over Your govt.

4. the naked king here is You, after stating that You care not for Israel or the balestinians You still spit all the hatred and blood libels based on Your hurt ego some thousand miles away having no clue about the ME.
Cursing all the time is a sign of weakness and stress, Do You have any reason to take this conflict pesonally?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, this is often claimed by pro-Palestinians.

• One people (APG) cannot claim independence (September 1948) over an area claimed previously declared independent (May 1948) by another people (National Council for the State of Israel).​

​

Oh really. What was Israel's defined territory and how was it acquired? It has to be more than just say so.

(COMMENT)

Originally, at the time of the midnight 14/15 May 1948 cablegram declaring independence, the Declaration was made pursuant to the recommendations adopted and outlined in A/RES/181(II) - Future Government of Palestine.

Chapter 2: The Partition Plan and the end of the British mandate
At the first special session of the General Assembly, which began on 28 April 1947, five Arab countries — Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Syria — tried unsuccessfully to include in the agenda an item that would address “the termination of the Mandate over Palestine and the declaration of its independence”. The Jewish case was presented by the Jewish Agency for Palestine, while the Arab Higher Committee spoke for the Palestinian Arabs. ----- The adoption of resolution 181 (II) was followed by outbreaks of violence in Palestine. As the situation deteriorated, the Security Council called for a special session of the General Assembly, which then met from 16 April to 14 May 1948. ----- On 14 May 1948, Britain relinquished its Mandate over Palestine and disengaged its forces. On the same day, the Jewish Agency proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan. Fierce hostilities immediately broke out between the Arab and Jewish communities. The next day, regular troops of the neighboring Arab States entered the territory to force by armed interference a different political outcome. On 15 July 1948, the Security Council decided in a resolution that the situation in Palestine constituted a threat to the peace. It ordered a ceasefire and declared that failure to comply would be construed as a breach of the peace requiring immediate consideration of enforcement measures under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. In accordance with the resolution, a second truce came into force. By that time, Israel controlled much of the territory allotted to the Arab State by the partition resolution, including the western part of Jerusalem. Egypt and Jordan respectively controlled the remaining portions of the Gaza district and the West Bank of the Jordan River. More fighting took place in October 1948 and March 1949, during which Israel took over other areas, some of which had been allotted to the Arab State.​

Israel was a product of self-determination, Recommendations of the General Assembly, and the force armed conflict initiated by the local Arabs and the armies of the Arab League.

The territory was acquired through "Cession:" as explained in Post #132.

Most Respectfully,
R

You need to get off of your resolution 181 shtick.

Israel was violating resolution 181 since before its declaration and continued to violate it since.

Israel never had any intention of abiding by resolution 181. It just lied about it to gain political recognition.

How did Israel violate 181, and don't forget this can only have happened after May 14 1948

There are several but here is one to chew on.

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

The Avalon Project : UN General Assembly Resolution 181

All Palestinians whose normal residence was in the territory that became Israel would become Israeli citizens. This reiterates international law so it is true whether there is a resolution 181 or not. The criterion is normal residence not physical presence so that would include refugees.

So where did Israel breach that rule then as they offered that to all non Jews on condition they revoke their violence and terrorism. Those that refused or assisted in the planned destruction of Israel would be taken out of the offer in line with the international law of that time.

So you have nothing but your usual islamonazi propaganda based on false premise and wrongly interpreted UN resolutions that are nothing more than recommendations and have no power in law

 

[Challenger]

Can Palestinian's and Israeli's ever be friends?

No. Obviously. Islamo-ideology carries with it hate for all things and that includes other moslems when they are the "wrong kind" of moslems.

Islamist history is one of perpetual war and conquest. Islam has always been expansionist, bellicose, and xenophobic. It has always been spread by the sword, and through rapine. And, as we see with words and actions from the very islamist "scholars" (past and present) you are in thrall to, islamism is still thoroughly outraged at the ascendency of the infidel and their outrageous behavior of daring to interrupt muhammud's (swish), cult-like embrace of an expansionist ideology that is focused on brute force and ultimately, subjugation of any infidel society within reach. Islamists have kept this indigant grudge smoldering for 1,300 years.

Islam's wars of aggression have been going on-going ever since muhammud's (swish) armies spilled out of the Arabian Peninsula. From the time a violent, power-hungry Arab warlord with grandiose delusions went out on a raid against the merchant caravan of his own people, through the holy war incursions into old Europe that prompted the Crusades, to the moslem slaughter of moslems just in the last few days, jihad has been the reliable vehicle by which Moslems have always carried their message of hate for all things infidel and the decree of making Islamism supreme in all lands

 

[Phoenall]

More blood libels, ridiculous parroting...

You know, I couldn't give a shit what labels you want to put on things, we both know the reason you do it, is because you're too ***** to be a responsible adult.

1. Arabs from Syria, Egypt and Saudi occupied the land of Israel.

We're not talking about them. We're talking about the indigenous, non-Jewish population, that has lived in that area for over 2000 years.

2.The blockade was the result of suicide bombings, and was implemented by Egypt too quiet successfully. It's the decision of Hamas and their electors-the balestinians who gave their children the explosive vests.

Wrong! The blockade started because Israel didn't like the results of a fair and democratic election, which BTW, was none of their god-damn business!

3. When saying "you have done", do You mean just me, all the jews or Israeli citizens all-together?

Israeli citizens all-together. You're responsible for everything your government does. Just like I am with mine.

I have been against the Iraq war from day one, but that doesn't change the fact that, as an American citizen, I am responsible for the death and destruction that were caused by our illegal and immoral invasion of that country.

4. What about owning Your decision to support a terrorist organization which steals UN aid meant for Gazans and WB citizens?

I don't support anything on that side of the planet. **** Hamas and **** Israel! **** both of them and **** you! I could care less about either side. I just don't like someone looking me in the eye and trying to tell me, "the emperor has new clothes". And that's what you're doing.

1. So who are those indigenous people of Palestine if Jews, Saudis, Egyptians and Syrians in Palestine aren't?

2. Yeah 'fair and democratic'..say when were the last elections?

3. Remind me this time Arab-Israelis are responsible for what?

4. I got it 'f**k everyone'...balestinians, Israelis...
I don't know about some magic emperor but Your ill motivation is for everyone to see.

1. So who are those indigenous people of Palestine...​

There is no debate. International law, the Treaty of Lausanne, and the Palestinian citizenship order all say the same thing.

Which international law, please be specific as to the one that applies and what date it was implemented?

No mention of anything like that in the treaty of Lausanne applying to Palestine, want to give the details ?

cant find any mention in the Palestinian citizenship order either

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The status of "indigenous people" confers no special rights of privileges. In fact the UN says:

• "Considering the diversity of indigenous peoples, an official definition of “indigenous” has not been adopted by any UN-system body."

1. So who are those indigenous people of Palestine...​

There is no debate. International law, the Treaty of Lausanne, and the Palestinian citizenship order all say the same thing.

(COMMENT)

They may very well. But that has nothing to do with being a citizen of Israel or the State of Palestine (alla 1988).

Most Respectfully,
R

Indeed, the rights of the indigenous people apply to territories that were conquered before it was illegal to do so. That does not apply to Palestine.

Sorry but it does as the land of Palestine was conquered in 1917 and it was not illegal to do so until after 1949

 

[Phoenall]

1. So who are those indigenous people of Palestine if Jews, Saudis, Egyptians and Syrians in Palestine aren't?

Who are those indigenous people? They are the people who had been living there indigenously. What kind of a dumbass question is that? People were living in that area for generations. It doesn't matter "who" they were, they're the indigenous population and they have the right to self-determination. A right that was denied to the non-Jewish residents.

2. Yeah 'fair and democratic'..say when were the last elections?

I hear you on that. It's not cool. But the one they were elected in, was.

3. Remind me this time Arab-Israelis are responsible for what?

Arab-Israeli's are responsible for the same things Jewish-Israeli's are. And that is everything their government does.

4. I got it 'f**k everyone'...balestinians, Israelis...
I don't know about some magic emperor but Your ill motivation is for everyone to see.

You've never heard that story?

The Emperor's New Clothes​

It's a pretty good story, if you got time to read it. It's not that long at all.

So that means the Jews who were Palestinian citizens then ?

Even though they are now dictators

So the Palestinians are fully responsible for the terrorism and illegal weapons because they are done by their elected government. You do realise that you have just made every Palestinian a valid and legal military target the next time Israel responds to the violence.

Have you because you seem to have it back-asswards

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh you're so close; but, wrong.

There are several but here is one to chew on.

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

The Avalon Project : UN General Assembly Resolution 181

All Palestinians whose normal residence was in the territory that became Israel would become Israeli citizens. This reiterates international law so it is true whether there is a resolution 181 or not. The criterion is normal residence not physical presence so that would include refugees.

(COMMENT)

First off: Nowhere in Chapter 3 --- Citizenship, international conventions and financial obligations, A/RES/181(II), does it stipulate that "criterion is normal residence not physical presence?" (Does it really say that? Or did you interpret that?) In fact the words "normal or habitual" are not used in this non-binding resolution. Although the intent may include your assumption. Below, I demonstrate how Israel meets this requirement.

More importantly, there is no international citizenship or nationality laws prior to:

NATIONALITY, STATELESSNESS, ASYLUM AND REFUGEES​

• • Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness
  • Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons
  • Convention relating to the Status of Refugees
  • Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees
  • Declaration on the Human Rights of Individuals who are not nationals of the country in which they live

What the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) A/RES/217(III), says is:

Article 15.

(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
​

The European Convention on Nationality (Strasbourg, 6.XI.1997)(ECN) is a bit more definitive.

Chapter VI – State succession and nationality

Article 18 – Principles

1. 
   
   • In matters of nationality in cases of State succession, each State Party concerned shall respect the principles of the rule of law, the rules concerning human rights and the principles contained in Articles 4 and 5 of this Convention and in paragraph 2 of this article, in particular in order to avoid statelessness.
   • In deciding on the granting or the retention of nationality in cases of State succession, each State Party concerned shall take account in particular of:
     1. the genuine and effective link of the person concerned with the State;
     2. the habitual residence of the person concerned at the time of State succession;
     3. the will of the person concerned;
     4. the territorial origin of the person concerned.
   • Where the acquisition of nationality is subject to the loss of a foreign nationality, the provisions of Article 16 of this Convention shall apply.

Article 19 – Settlement by international agreement

In cases of State succession, States Parties concerned shall endeavour to regulate matters relating to nationality by agreement amongst themselves and, where applicable, in their relationship with other States concerned. Such agreements shall respect the principles and rules contained or referred to in this chapter.

Article 20 – Principles concerning non-nationals

1. • Each State Party shall respect the following principles:
     1. nationals of a predecessor State habitually resident in the territory over which sovereignty is transferred to a successor State and who have not acquired its nationality shall have the right to remain in that State;
     2. persons referred to in sub-paragraph a shall enjoy equality of treatment with nationals of the successor State in relation to social and economic rights.
   • Each State Party may exclude persons considered under paragraph 1 from employment in the public service involving the exercise of sovereign powers.

However, the ECN was written in 1997 and is not relevant as a legal precedent prior to that time; including the Arab-Israel Wars of 1948, 1967, and 1973.

Second, the rule of thumb for Refugees is very different than you assert. CERI is not "law". It is and Administrative Guide. Most Palestinians registered under CERI are not true refugees, living off the dole.

Third, no one in the West Bank or Gaza Strip is either a stateless person or a true refugee. And Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza Strip who have acquired a new nationality (that of the State of Palestine) or held a previous nationality (citizen of the Hashemite Kingdom), and enjoyed the protection of that nation, is well beyond the consideration of Israel.

Fourth: (I am not an expert of Israeli Law.) But my understanding is that current Israeli Citizenship and Nationality Law cover:

• (a) A person who, immediately before the establishment of the State, was a Palestinian citizen and who does not become a Israel national under section 2, shall become an Israel national with effect from the day of the establishment of the State if -
  • (1) he was registered on the 4th Adar, 5712 (1st March 1952) as an inhabitant under the Registration of Inhabitants Ordinance, 5709-1949(2); and
  • (2) he is an inhabitant of Israel on the day of the coming into force of this Law; and
  • (3) he was in Israel, or in an area which became Israel territory after the establishment of the State, from the day of the establishment of the State to the day of the coming into force of this Law, or entered Israel legally during that period.
• (b) A person born after the establishment of the State who is an inhabitant of Israel on the day of the coming into force of this Law, and whose father or mother becomes an Israel national under subsection (a), shall become an Israel national with effect from the day of his birth.

I believe that NATIONALITY LAW, 5712-1952* PART ONE: ACQUISITION OF NATIONALITY conforms to the general stipulations under the UDHR A/RES/217(III), pertaining to Nationality.

Most Respectfully,
R

It's getting pretty smoky in here. We need to clear the air.
-----------------

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.

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel​

------------------
Then resolution 181 reiterates this same principle.

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

The Avalon Project : UN General Assembly Resolution 181​

The question was if Israel is violating resolution 181?

Now, if both sides agreed to resolution 181 it would be a valid treaty of cession and Israel would be in violation of this treaty obligation.

• Cession, is the transfer of territory usually by treaty from one state to another.​

Rocco claims that resolution 181 is valid. I say it is not.

And which state was the land transferred to, and what date did that take place ? Once you answer that honestly you will see where you have been wrong all these years

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The status of "indigenous people" confers no special rights of privileges. In fact the UN says:

• "Considering the diversity of indigenous peoples, an official definition of “indigenous” has not been adopted by any UN-system body."

1. So who are those indigenous people of Palestine...​

There is no debate. International law, the Treaty of Lausanne, and the Palestinian citizenship order all say the same thing.

(COMMENT)

They may very well. But that has nothing to do with being a citizen of Israel or the State of Palestine (alla 1988).

Most Respectfully,
R

Indeed, the rights of the indigenous people apply to territories that were conquered before it was illegal to do so. That does not apply to Palestine.

Sorry but it does as the land of Palestine was conquered in 1917 and it was not illegal to do so until after 1949

Britain ended its occupation of Palestine in 1948.

 

[Hollie]

Can Palestinian's and Israeli's ever be friends?

No. Obviously. Islamo-ideology carries with it hate for all things and that includes other moslems when they are the "wrong kind" of moslems.

Islamist history is one of perpetual war and conquest. Islam has always been expansionist, bellicose, and xenophobic. It has always been spread by the sword, and through rapine. And, as we see with words and actions from the very islamist "scholars" (past and present) you are in thrall to, islamism is still thoroughly outraged at the ascendency of the infidel and their outrageous behavior of daring to interrupt muhammud's (swish), cult-like embrace of an expansionist ideology that is focused on brute force and ultimately, subjugation of any infidel society within reach. Islamists have kept this indigant grudge smoldering for 1,300 years.

Islam's wars of aggression have been going on-going ever since muhammud's (swish) armies spilled out of the Arabian Peninsula. From the time a violent, power-hungry Arab warlord with grandiose delusions went out on a raid against the merchant caravan of his own people, through the holy war incursions into old Europe that prompted the Crusades, to the moslem slaughter of moslems just in the last few days, jihad has been the reliable vehicle by which Moslems have always carried their message of hate for all things infidel and the decree of making Islamism supreme in all lands

Hit 'em with the facts!

That's the best remedy for dealing with ignorant Islamos.

It leaves them with no options but to spam the board with their pointless cartoons.

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The status of "indigenous people" confers no special rights of privileges. In fact the UN says:

• "Considering the diversity of indigenous peoples, an official definition of “indigenous” has not been adopted by any UN-system body."

1. So who are those indigenous people of Palestine...​

There is no debate. International law, the Treaty of Lausanne, and the Palestinian citizenship order all say the same thing.

(COMMENT)

They may very well. But that has nothing to do with being a citizen of Israel or the State of Palestine (alla 1988).

Most Respectfully,
R

Indeed, the rights of the indigenous people apply to territories that were conquered before it was illegal to do so. That does not apply to Palestine.

Sorry but it does as the land of Palestine was conquered in 1917 and it was not illegal to do so until after 1949

Britain ended its occupation of Palestine in 1948.

But the occupying squatter Egyptians, Syrians and Lebanese did not.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Let's be clear, your timeline is screwed-up.

It's getting pretty smoky in here. We need to clear the air.
-----------------

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.

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel​

​

(COMMENT)

The Treaty of Lausanne says that "nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred." (To whom was the territory transferred?)(Article 16 of the Lausanne Treaty ---
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.)
That is, the people become citizens of the Territory to which the Mandate of Palestine applied. The Mandatory became the successor government was that established by the Allied Powers. It confers no special rights beyond citizenship established by the citizenship order.

Article 30 of the Lausanne Treaty, authored by the Allied Powers, is totally satisfied by the outcomes of the Citizenship Order of 1925; by the very same authors. The impact of the Lausanne Treaty does not establish an obligation beyond the first successor (Turkey to Allied Powers). It has no implications beyond the Mandatory.
------------------

Then resolution 181 reiterates this same principle.

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

The Avalon Project : UN General Assembly Resolution 181​

The question was if Israel is violating resolution 181?

Now, if both sides agreed to resolution 181 it would be a valid treaty of cession and Israel would be in violation of this treaty obligation.

• Cession, is the transfer of territory usually by treaty from one state to another.​

Rocco claims that resolution 181 is valid. I say it is not.

(COMMENT)

First you cannot violate a "non-binding" resolution. You either agree or disagree to comply with it. But a non-binding resolution is not international law that you can violate. And Resolution 181 is not a Treaty.

Actually, it is NOT Rocco that claims Resolution 181(II) is valid; but that of the PLO (sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated) and the Arab Palestinian that hold to the position that recognizes the legitimacy of Resolution 181.

Letter dated 25 March 1999 from the Permanent Observer
of Palestine to the United Nations addressed to the
Secretary-General​

Yesterday, the Israeli representative to the United Nations made some comments to the media on the issue of General Assembly resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947, as well as on a statement previously made by President Arafat on the subject. The Israeli representative repeated what the Israeli Foreign Minister said a few days ago, namely that resolution 181 (II) was "null and void". These are pathetic statements involving illegal positions with far-reaching and serious consequences.

For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a corpus separatum, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II), as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process.​

Declaration of Independence​

Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947, and

Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:

The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.​

The development of citizenship and nationality laws (both international and domestic) are designed to eliminate the growth of "stateless persons" and protect domestic immigration (a variation of territorial sovereignty) in the name of the people.

Finally, there were two (2) very important points laid-out in A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012, which upgraded the Status of Palestine.

• Reaffirming its commitment, in accordance with international law, to the two-State solution of an independent, sovereign, democratic, viable and contiguous State of Palestine living side by side with Israel in peace and security on the basis of the pre-1967 borders,
• Reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967;

The Two-State Solution and the territory occupied since 1967. This is different from the demand for all the territory prior to the termination of the Mandate.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The status of "indigenous people" confers no special rights of privileges. In fact the UN says:

• "Considering the diversity of indigenous peoples, an official definition of “indigenous” has not been adopted by any UN-system body."

1. So who are those indigenous people of Palestine...​

There is no debate. International law, the Treaty of Lausanne, and the Palestinian citizenship order all say the same thing.

(COMMENT)

They may very well. But that has nothing to do with being a citizen of Israel or the State of Palestine (alla 1988).

Most Respectfully,
R

Indeed, the rights of the indigenous people apply to territories that were conquered before it was illegal to do so. That does not apply to Palestine.

Sorry but it does as the land of Palestine was conquered in 1917 and it was not illegal to do so until after 1949

Britain ended its occupation of Palestine in 1948.

But handed it over to the UN as part of the mandate, which is still in force until the arab muslims prove they are capable of free determination and able to govern themselves.

 

[RoccoR]

P_F Tinmore, et al,

Well, not exactly correct.

P F Tinmore, et al,

The status of "indigenous people" confers no special rights of privileges. In fact the UN says:

• "Considering the diversity of indigenous peoples, an official definition of “indigenous” has not been adopted by any UN-system body."

1. So who are those indigenous people of Palestine...​

There is no debate. International law, the Treaty of Lausanne, and the Palestinian citizenship order all say the same thing.

(COMMENT)
They may very well. But that has nothing to do with being a citizen of Israel or the State of Palestine (alla 1988).

Indeed, the rights of the indigenous people apply to territories that were conquered before it was illegal to do so. That does not apply to Palestine.

Sorry but it does as the land of Palestine was conquered in 1917 and it was not illegal to do so until after 1949

Britain ended its occupation of Palestine in 1948.

(COMMENT)

The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration or OETA was a joint British and French military administration over Levantine and Mesopotamian provinces of the former Ottoman Empire between 1918–20, set up following the Sinai and Palestine Campaign of World War I. The administration ended following the assignment of the French Mandate of Syria and Lebanon and British Mandate for Palestine at the 19–26 April 1920 San Remo conference.
SOURCE: Open Source Encyclopedia​

You will no doubt note, that the INTERIM REPORT ON THE CIVIL ADMINISTRATION OF PALESTINE, --- makes clear that the Civil Administration began 1 JULY 1920; almost immediately following the San Remo Convention (25 April 1920) by the Allied Powers.

It is more accurate for you to say that the UK terminated responsibilities as the Mandatory in May 1948.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh you're so close; but, wrong.

There are several but here is one to chew on.

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

The Avalon Project : UN General Assembly Resolution 181

All Palestinians whose normal residence was in the territory that became Israel would become Israeli citizens. This reiterates international law so it is true whether there is a resolution 181 or not. The criterion is normal residence not physical presence so that would include refugees.

(COMMENT)

First off: Nowhere in Chapter 3 --- Citizenship, international conventions and financial obligations, A/RES/181(II), does it stipulate that "criterion is normal residence not physical presence?" (Does it really say that? Or did you interpret that?) In fact the words "normal or habitual" are not used in this non-binding resolution. Although the intent may include your assumption. Below, I demonstrate how Israel meets this requirement.

More importantly, there is no international citizenship or nationality laws prior to:

NATIONALITY, STATELESSNESS, ASYLUM AND REFUGEES​

• • Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness
  • Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons
  • Convention relating to the Status of Refugees
  • Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees
  • Declaration on the Human Rights of Individuals who are not nationals of the country in which they live

What the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) A/RES/217(III), says is:

Article 15.

(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
​

The European Convention on Nationality (Strasbourg, 6.XI.1997)(ECN) is a bit more definitive.

Chapter VI – State succession and nationality

Article 18 – Principles

1. 
   
   • In matters of nationality in cases of State succession, each State Party concerned shall respect the principles of the rule of law, the rules concerning human rights and the principles contained in Articles 4 and 5 of this Convention and in paragraph 2 of this article, in particular in order to avoid statelessness.
   • In deciding on the granting or the retention of nationality in cases of State succession, each State Party concerned shall take account in particular of:
     1. the genuine and effective link of the person concerned with the State;
     2. the habitual residence of the person concerned at the time of State succession;
     3. the will of the person concerned;
     4. the territorial origin of the person concerned.
   • Where the acquisition of nationality is subject to the loss of a foreign nationality, the provisions of Article 16 of this Convention shall apply.

Article 19 – Settlement by international agreement

In cases of State succession, States Parties concerned shall endeavour to regulate matters relating to nationality by agreement amongst themselves and, where applicable, in their relationship with other States concerned. Such agreements shall respect the principles and rules contained or referred to in this chapter.

Article 20 – Principles concerning non-nationals

1. • Each State Party shall respect the following principles:
     1. nationals of a predecessor State habitually resident in the territory over which sovereignty is transferred to a successor State and who have not acquired its nationality shall have the right to remain in that State;
     2. persons referred to in sub-paragraph a shall enjoy equality of treatment with nationals of the successor State in relation to social and economic rights.
   • Each State Party may exclude persons considered under paragraph 1 from employment in the public service involving the exercise of sovereign powers.

However, the ECN was written in 1997 and is not relevant as a legal precedent prior to that time; including the Arab-Israel Wars of 1948, 1967, and 1973.

Second, the rule of thumb for Refugees is very different than you assert. CERI is not "law". It is and Administrative Guide. Most Palestinians registered under CERI are not true refugees, living off the dole.

Third, no one in the West Bank or Gaza Strip is either a stateless person or a true refugee. And Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza Strip who have acquired a new nationality (that of the State of Palestine) or held a previous nationality (citizen of the Hashemite Kingdom), and enjoyed the protection of that nation, is well beyond the consideration of Israel.

Fourth: (I am not an expert of Israeli Law.) But my understanding is that current Israeli Citizenship and Nationality Law cover:

• (a) A person who, immediately before the establishment of the State, was a Palestinian citizen and who does not become a Israel national under section 2, shall become an Israel national with effect from the day of the establishment of the State if -
  • (1) he was registered on the 4th Adar, 5712 (1st March 1952) as an inhabitant under the Registration of Inhabitants Ordinance, 5709-1949(2); and
  • (2) he is an inhabitant of Israel on the day of the coming into force of this Law; and
  • (3) he was in Israel, or in an area which became Israel territory after the establishment of the State, from the day of the establishment of the State to the day of the coming into force of this Law, or entered Israel legally during that period.
• (b) A person born after the establishment of the State who is an inhabitant of Israel on the day of the coming into force of this Law, and whose father or mother becomes an Israel national under subsection (a), shall become an Israel national with effect from the day of his birth.

I believe that NATIONALITY LAW, 5712-1952* PART ONE: ACQUISITION OF NATIONALITY conforms to the general stipulations under the UDHR A/RES/217(III), pertaining to Nationality.

Most Respectfully,
R

It's getting pretty smoky in here. We need to clear the air.
-----------------

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.

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel​

------------------
Then resolution 181 reiterates this same principle.

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

The Avalon Project : UN General Assembly Resolution 181​

The question was if Israel is violating resolution 181?

Now, if both sides agreed to resolution 181 it would be a valid treaty of cession and Israel would be in violation of this treaty obligation.

• Cession, is the transfer of territory usually by treaty from one state to another.​

Rocco claims that resolution 181 is valid. I say it is not.

And which state was the land transferred to, and what date did that take place ? Once you answer that honestly you will see where you have been wrong all these years

The land was transferred to Palestine.

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.

State of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

 

[P F Tinmore]

P_F Tinmore, et al,

Well, not exactly correct.

P F Tinmore, et al,

The status of "indigenous people" confers no special rights of privileges. In fact the UN says:

• "Considering the diversity of indigenous peoples, an official definition of “indigenous” has not been adopted by any UN-system body."

1. So who are those indigenous people of Palestine...​

There is no debate. International law, the Treaty of Lausanne, and the Palestinian citizenship order all say the same thing.

(COMMENT)
They may very well. But that has nothing to do with being a citizen of Israel or the State of Palestine (alla 1988).

Indeed, the rights of the indigenous people apply to territories that were conquered before it was illegal to do so. That does not apply to Palestine.

Sorry but it does as the land of Palestine was conquered in 1917 and it was not illegal to do so until after 1949

Britain ended its occupation of Palestine in 1948.

(COMMENT)

The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration or OETA was a joint British and French military administration over Levantine and Mesopotamian provinces of the former Ottoman Empire between 1918–20, set up following the Sinai and Palestine Campaign of World War I. The administration ended following the assignment of the French Mandate of Syria and Lebanon and British Mandate for Palestine at the 19–26 April 1920 San Remo conference.
SOURCE: Open Source Encyclopedia​

You will no doubt note, that the INTERIM REPORT ON THE CIVIL ADMINISTRATION OF PALESTINE, --- makes clear that the Civil Administration began 1 JULY 1920; almost immediately following the San Remo Convention (25 April 1920) by the Allied Powers.

It is more accurate for you to say that the UK terminated responsibilities as the Mandatory in May 1948.

Most Respectfully,
R

Indeed, Britain occupied Palestine. In 1920 Britain changed the name to civil administration. However, Palestine remained under military occupation. Britain even increased its troop strength in the late '30s.

Why did Britain need 30 years of military control? If they had followed the LoN Covenant, a handful of civilians could have been in and out of there in 10-15 years.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh you're so close; but, wrong.

There are several but here is one to chew on.

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

The Avalon Project : UN General Assembly Resolution 181

All Palestinians whose normal residence was in the territory that became Israel would become Israeli citizens. This reiterates international law so it is true whether there is a resolution 181 or not. The criterion is normal residence not physical presence so that would include refugees.

(COMMENT)

First off: Nowhere in Chapter 3 --- Citizenship, international conventions and financial obligations, A/RES/181(II), does it stipulate that "criterion is normal residence not physical presence?" (Does it really say that? Or did you interpret that?) In fact the words "normal or habitual" are not used in this non-binding resolution. Although the intent may include your assumption. Below, I demonstrate how Israel meets this requirement.

More importantly, there is no international citizenship or nationality laws prior to:

NATIONALITY, STATELESSNESS, ASYLUM AND REFUGEES​

• • Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness
  • Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons
  • Convention relating to the Status of Refugees
  • Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees
  • Declaration on the Human Rights of Individuals who are not nationals of the country in which they live

What the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) A/RES/217(III), says is:

Article 15.

(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
​

The European Convention on Nationality (Strasbourg, 6.XI.1997)(ECN) is a bit more definitive.

Chapter VI – State succession and nationality

Article 18 – Principles

1. 
   
   • In matters of nationality in cases of State succession, each State Party concerned shall respect the principles of the rule of law, the rules concerning human rights and the principles contained in Articles 4 and 5 of this Convention and in paragraph 2 of this article, in particular in order to avoid statelessness.
   • In deciding on the granting or the retention of nationality in cases of State succession, each State Party concerned shall take account in particular of:
     1. the genuine and effective link of the person concerned with the State;
     2. the habitual residence of the person concerned at the time of State succession;
     3. the will of the person concerned;
     4. the territorial origin of the person concerned.
   • Where the acquisition of nationality is subject to the loss of a foreign nationality, the provisions of Article 16 of this Convention shall apply.

Article 19 – Settlement by international agreement

In cases of State succession, States Parties concerned shall endeavour to regulate matters relating to nationality by agreement amongst themselves and, where applicable, in their relationship with other States concerned. Such agreements shall respect the principles and rules contained or referred to in this chapter.

Article 20 – Principles concerning non-nationals

1. • Each State Party shall respect the following principles:
     1. nationals of a predecessor State habitually resident in the territory over which sovereignty is transferred to a successor State and who have not acquired its nationality shall have the right to remain in that State;
     2. persons referred to in sub-paragraph a shall enjoy equality of treatment with nationals of the successor State in relation to social and economic rights.
   • Each State Party may exclude persons considered under paragraph 1 from employment in the public service involving the exercise of sovereign powers.

However, the ECN was written in 1997 and is not relevant as a legal precedent prior to that time; including the Arab-Israel Wars of 1948, 1967, and 1973.

Second, the rule of thumb for Refugees is very different than you assert. CERI is not "law". It is and Administrative Guide. Most Palestinians registered under CERI are not true refugees, living off the dole.

Third, no one in the West Bank or Gaza Strip is either a stateless person or a true refugee. And Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza Strip who have acquired a new nationality (that of the State of Palestine) or held a previous nationality (citizen of the Hashemite Kingdom), and enjoyed the protection of that nation, is well beyond the consideration of Israel.

Fourth: (I am not an expert of Israeli Law.) But my understanding is that current Israeli Citizenship and Nationality Law cover:

• (a) A person who, immediately before the establishment of the State, was a Palestinian citizen and who does not become a Israel national under section 2, shall become an Israel national with effect from the day of the establishment of the State if -
  • (1) he was registered on the 4th Adar, 5712 (1st March 1952) as an inhabitant under the Registration of Inhabitants Ordinance, 5709-1949(2); and
  • (2) he is an inhabitant of Israel on the day of the coming into force of this Law; and
  • (3) he was in Israel, or in an area which became Israel territory after the establishment of the State, from the day of the establishment of the State to the day of the coming into force of this Law, or entered Israel legally during that period.
• (b) A person born after the establishment of the State who is an inhabitant of Israel on the day of the coming into force of this Law, and whose father or mother becomes an Israel national under subsection (a), shall become an Israel national with effect from the day of his birth.

I believe that NATIONALITY LAW, 5712-1952* PART ONE: ACQUISITION OF NATIONALITY conforms to the general stipulations under the UDHR A/RES/217(III), pertaining to Nationality.

Most Respectfully,
R

It's getting pretty smoky in here. We need to clear the air.
-----------------

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.

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel​

------------------
Then resolution 181 reiterates this same principle.

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

The Avalon Project : UN General Assembly Resolution 181​

The question was if Israel is violating resolution 181?

Now, if both sides agreed to resolution 181 it would be a valid treaty of cession and Israel would be in violation of this treaty obligation.

• Cession, is the transfer of territory usually by treaty from one state to another.​

Rocco claims that resolution 181 is valid. I say it is not.

And which state was the land transferred to, and what date did that take place ? Once you answer that honestly you will see where you have been wrong all these years

The land was transferred to Palestine.

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.

State of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

Did you read this in your link

The Mandate was administered as two territories: Palestine and Transjordan,[42] with the Jordan River being the boundary between them. The boundaries under the Mandate also did not follow those sought by the Jewish community, which sought the inclusion of the east bank of the Jordan into the Palestinian territory, to which the objective of the Mandate for a homeland for the Jewish people would apply. It was made clear from before the commencement of the Mandate, and a clause to that effect was inserted in the Mandate, that the objective set out in the Mandate would not apply to Transjordan

When did the state of Palestine come into being and who were its representatives ?


Cant find your highlighted part in the link you gave to the islamonazi propaganda wiki entry

 

[Phoenall]

P_F Tinmore, et al,

Well, not exactly correct.

P F Tinmore, et al,

The status of "indigenous people" confers no special rights of privileges. In fact the UN says:

• "Considering the diversity of indigenous peoples, an official definition of “indigenous” has not been adopted by any UN-system body."

(COMMENT)
They may very well. But that has nothing to do with being a citizen of Israel or the State of Palestine (alla 1988).

Indeed, the rights of the indigenous people apply to territories that were conquered before it was illegal to do so. That does not apply to Palestine.

Sorry but it does as the land of Palestine was conquered in 1917 and it was not illegal to do so until after 1949

Britain ended its occupation of Palestine in 1948.

(COMMENT)

The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration or OETA was a joint British and French military administration over Levantine and Mesopotamian provinces of the former Ottoman Empire between 1918–20, set up following the Sinai and Palestine Campaign of World War I. The administration ended following the assignment of the French Mandate of Syria and Lebanon and British Mandate for Palestine at the 19–26 April 1920 San Remo conference.
SOURCE: Open Source Encyclopedia​

You will no doubt note, that the INTERIM REPORT ON THE CIVIL ADMINISTRATION OF PALESTINE, --- makes clear that the Civil Administration began 1 JULY 1920; almost immediately following the San Remo Convention (25 April 1920) by the Allied Powers.

It is more accurate for you to say that the UK terminated responsibilities as the Mandatory in May 1948.

Most Respectfully,
R

Indeed, Britain occupied Palestine. In 1920 Britain changed the name to civil administration. However, Palestine remained under military occupation. Britain even increased its troop strength in the late '30s.

Why did Britain need 30 years of military control? If they had followed the LoN Covenant, a handful of civilians could have been in and out of there in 10-15 years.

Because of arab muslim violence and terrorism.

The covenant did not say what you have stated