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

[P F Tinmore]

P_F Tinmore, et al,

Well, not exactly correct.

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

Britain created all of the violence by not following the Covenant.

 

[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

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.

Hit 'em with the facts!

Oh, please, stop! There goes another rib! Facts will be forever strangers to Hasbara Hollie.

 

[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.

Hit 'em with the facts!

Oh, please, stop! There goes another rib! Facts will be forever strangers to Hasbara Hollie.

Your continued stalking doesn't hide the fact that you're unable to address the salient points in my posted comments.

You're really getting quite desperate.

 

[Hollie]

P_F Tinmore, et al,

Well, not exactly correct.

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

Britain created all of the violence by not following the Covenant.

Yes tinny. You are demonstrating that attribute we call "victim complex". Everything is always someone else's fault.

For as long as your refuse to take responsibility for your actions, you will always be the impotent victim you choose to be.

 

[Phoenall]

P_F Tinmore, et al,

Well, not exactly correct.

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

Britain created all of the violence by not following the Covenant.

The violence started before the covenant so why do you LIE

 

[Hollie]

P_F Tinmore, et al,

Well, not exactly correct.

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

Britain created all of the violence by not following the Covenant.

The violence started before the covenant so why do you LIE

Apparently, we're supposed to ignore the brutality of the Islamist Ottoman Crusaders who ravaged the area as a part of islam's gee-had.

 

[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

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.

Hit 'em with the facts!

Oh, please, stop! There goes another rib! Facts will be forever strangers to Hasbara Hollie.

Your continued stalking doesn't hide the fact that you're unable to address the salient points in my posted comments.

You're really getting quite desperate.

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.

Hit 'em with the facts!

Oh, please, stop! There goes another rib! Facts will be forever strangers to Hasbara Hollie.

Your continued stalking doesn't hide the fact that you're unable to address the salient points in my posted comments.

You're really getting quite desperate.

When you actually post "salient points" I'll address them and the only one here who is desperate is you, hollow Hollie.

 

[Rehmani]

Humanity you are behaving hypocritically

How so?

As You are defending trouble maker israel, ignoring all that killing by jews.

I do not defend the government of Israel nor their policies...

I do not defend the zionists who, in my opinion, are no better than Hamas extremists...

I do defend the right of Jews to have a homeland...

You understand the differences between Israel, zionism and Jews?

I do understand that you are hypocrite and you are supporting force invasion and keep killing innocent people by Israel.

Odd response to my comment... Did you actually READ my comment?

As Jew already living happily around the world, 13 million visible and 100 million not visible regardless muslim countries and non muslim countries. Means they don't need homeland and they have no right to displace whole Palestinian nation to pursue their desire to have home.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P_F Tinmore, et al,

Well, not exactly correct.

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

Britain created all of the violence by not following the Covenant.

Yes tinny. You are demonstrating that attribute we call "victim complex". Everything is always someone else's fault.

For as long as your refuse to take responsibility for your actions, you will always be the impotent victim you choose to be.

Like civilians under military occupation.

Good choice.

 

[Phoenall]

How so?

As You are defending trouble maker israel, ignoring all that killing by jews.

I do not defend the government of Israel nor their policies...

I do not defend the zionists who, in my opinion, are no better than Hamas extremists...

I do defend the right of Jews to have a homeland...

You understand the differences between Israel, zionism and Jews?

I do understand that you are hypocrite and you are supporting force invasion and keep killing innocent people by Israel.

Odd response to my comment... Did you actually READ my comment?

As Jew already living happily around the world, 13 million visible and 100 million not visible regardless muslim countries and non muslim countries. Means they don't need homeland and they have no right to displace whole Palestinian nation to pursue their desire to have home.

What Palestinian nation was that, when did it come into existence and who was its leader ?

 

[Phoenall]

P_F Tinmore, et al,

Well, not exactly correct.

(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

Britain created all of the violence by not following the Covenant.

Yes tinny. You are demonstrating that attribute we call "victim complex". Everything is always someone else's fault.

For as long as your refuse to take responsibility for your actions, you will always be the impotent victim you choose to be.

Like civilians under military occupation.

Good choice.

What civilians as dildo has shown that all Palestinians are terrorists and militia

 

[Humanity]

How so?

As You are defending trouble maker israel, ignoring all that killing by jews.

I do not defend the government of Israel nor their policies...

I do not defend the zionists who, in my opinion, are no better than Hamas extremists...

I do defend the right of Jews to have a homeland...

You understand the differences between Israel, zionism and Jews?

I do understand that you are hypocrite and you are supporting force invasion and keep killing innocent people by Israel.

Odd response to my comment... Did you actually READ my comment?

As Jew already living happily around the world, 13 million visible and 100 million not visible regardless muslim countries and non muslim countries. Means they don't need homeland and they have no right to displace whole Palestinian nation to pursue their desire to have home.

Sorry, you are wrong....

Everyone has a 'right' to a homeland...

The issue arises when they want to steal someone else homeland.

Whatever the sky wizard allegedly told some bloke about going and killing everyone in a specified region and taking the land for eternity.... Utter shite!

And, to be honest, I really don't care if SOME of them lived there previously... Like 3,000 years ago... I think the world has moved on since then!

Trying to 'claim' a region that has been conquered, inhabited, reconquered, re-inhabited throughout the millennia by several different dynasties/civilisations is utterly ridiculous....

However, there is NOTHING wrong in people wanting a 'homeland'... Just not at the expense of others!

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, your interpretation is completely wrong.

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​

(COMMENT)

The Lausanne Treaty does not mention Palestine or Trans-Jordan by name. It is assumed that it is included in the Article 3 description:
From the Mediterranean to the frontier of Persia, the frontier of Turkey is laid down as follows: With Syria: The frontier described in Article 8 of the Franco-Turkish Agreement of the 20th October, 1921.

Which Treaty are you talking about that decides by name that "Palestine and Trans-Jordan" were newly created states. While it is true that the Treaty of Sevres does make reference to "Palestine" --- it does not mention Trans-Jordan. The Treaty of Sevres was superseded by the Treaty of Lausanne.

To my knowledge, there is no Treaty between Turkey and the Palestinians transferring and territory to them or creating a new State.

I would be ever so grateful if your were to identify that treaty.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't think the High Commissioner was subject to your simplified questions.

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.

(COMMENT)

Your mistake is in your interpretation of "military Control." The Civil Administration was under the control of the High Commissioner; not the military commander.

The Political History of Palestine under
British Administration​

1. The territory now known as Palestine formed part of the Ottoman empire until it was occupied, in 1917-19, by British forces under the command of General Allenby. A military administration, under the title of Occupied Enemy Territory Administration, was established with headquarters in Jerusalem at the end of 1917.

2. It was decided at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 that the mandates system, outlined in article 22 of the covenant of the League of Nations should be applied to the non-Turkish portions of the Ottoman Empire. The Mandate for Palestine was assigned to the United Kingdom by the Supreme Council of the Allied Powers at San Reno on the 25th April, 1920. Shortly afterwards, on the 1st July, 1920, the military regime was replaced by a civil administration under a High Commission. The northern frontier of Palestine was determined in accordance with an Anglo-French Convention of the 23rd December, 1920, and its eastern frontier by virtue of the recognition, in 1923, of the existence of an independent Government in Transjordan.​

From 1 July 1920 to the termination of the Mandate, the territory was under "civil" administration and not military control or occupation.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, I think you misunderstand.

P_F Tinmore, et al,

Well, not exactly correct.

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

Britain created all of the violence by not following the Covenant.

(COMMENT)

The Covenant makes no specific reference, promise or obligation to the regional inhabitance that would come to be known later as Arab Palestinians. The Covenant refers to "Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire." What constituted the territory of Palestine in 1919, had not been decided yet. The "certain communities" may or may not have included Palestine, within such boundaries as may have been determined later by the Principal Allied Powers.

The obligations of the Mandatory, written by the same authors as wrote the Covenant, were articulated in the Mandate issued by the Allied Powers.

The principal obligations of the mandatory Power are defined in Article 2 of the Mandate. This Article appears to give equal weight to three obligations:

(i) the creation of conditions which would secure the establishment of the Jewish national home;

(ii) the creation of conditions which would secure the development of self-governing institutions; and

(iii) the safeguarding of the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants.​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, your interpretation is completely wrong.

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​

(COMMENT)

The Lausanne Treaty does not mention Palestine or Trans-Jordan by name. It is assumed that it is included in the Article 3 description:
From the Mediterranean to the frontier of Persia, the frontier of Turkey is laid down as follows: With Syria: The frontier described in Article 8 of the Franco-Turkish Agreement of the 20th October, 1921.

Which Treaty are you talking about that decides by name that "Palestine and Trans-Jordan" were newly created states. While it is true that the Treaty of Sevres does make reference to "Palestine" --- it does not mention Trans-Jordan. The Treaty of Sevres was superseded by the Treaty of Lausanne.

To my knowledge, there is no Treaty between Turkey and the Palestinians transferring and territory to them or creating a new State.

I would be ever so grateful if your were to identify that treaty.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Lausanne Treaty does not mention Palestine or Trans-Jordan by name.​

Indeed, it does mention successor states without mentioning any of them by name. If it mentioned all of them except for Palestine you may have a point.

You are grasping at straws and going deep into Israeli propaganda territory.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Does "Treaty of Lausanne" really it says: "successor states" ??? I believe it says: "the State to which such territory is transferred."

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, your interpretation is completely wrong.

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​

(COMMENT)

The Lausanne Treaty does not mention Palestine or Trans-Jordan by name. It is assumed that it is included in the Article 3 description:
From the Mediterranean to the frontier of Persia, the frontier of Turkey is laid down as follows: With Syria: The frontier described in Article 8 of the Franco-Turkish Agreement of the 20th October, 1921.

Which Treaty are you talking about that decides by name that "Palestine and Trans-Jordan" were newly created states. While it is true that the Treaty of Sevres does make reference to "Palestine" --- it does not mention Trans-Jordan. The Treaty of Sevres was superseded by the Treaty of Lausanne.

To my knowledge, there is no Treaty between Turkey and the Palestinians transferring and territory to them or creating a new State.

I would be ever so grateful if your were to identify that treaty.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Lausanne Treaty does not mention Palestine or Trans-Jordan by name.​

Indeed, it does mention successor states without mentioning any of them by name. If it mentioned all of them except for Palestine you may have a point.

You are grasping at straws and going deep into Israeli propaganda territory.

(COMMENT)

The de facto government for the territory subject to the Mandate of Palestine was the Mandatory; as directed by the Allied Powers.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, I think you misunderstand.

P_F Tinmore, et al,

Well, not exactly correct.

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

Britain created all of the violence by not following the Covenant.

(COMMENT)

The Covenant makes no specific reference, promise or obligation to the regional inhabitance that would come to be known later as Arab Palestinians. The Covenant refers to "Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire." What constituted the territory of Palestine in 1919, had not been decided yet. The "certain communities" may or may not have included Palestine, within such boundaries as may have been determined later by the Principal Allied Powers.

The obligations of the Mandatory, written by the same authors as wrote the Covenant, were articulated in the Mandate issued by the Allied Powers.

The principal obligations of the mandatory Power are defined in Article 2 of the Mandate. This Article appears to give equal weight to three obligations:

(i) the creation of conditions which would secure the establishment of the Jewish national home;

(ii) the creation of conditions which would secure the development of self-governing institutions; and

(iii) the safeguarding of the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants.​

Most Respectfully,
R

What does that have to do with Britain maintaining a military presence for basically a civilian mandate?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Occupation is defined by the Hague Convention.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, I think you misunderstand.

P_F Tinmore, et al,

Well, not exactly correct.

(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

Britain created all of the violence by not following the Covenant.

(COMMENT)

The Covenant makes no specific reference, promise or obligation to the regional inhabitance that would come to be known later as Arab Palestinians. The Covenant refers to "Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire." What constituted the territory of Palestine in 1919, had not been decided yet. The "certain communities" may or may not have included Palestine, within such boundaries as may have been determined later by the Principal Allied Powers.

The obligations of the Mandatory, written by the same authors as wrote the Covenant, were articulated in the Mandate issued by the Allied Powers.

The principal obligations of the mandatory Power are defined in Article 2 of the Mandate. This Article appears to give equal weight to three obligations:

(i) the creation of conditions which would secure the establishment of the Jewish national home;

(ii) the creation of conditions which would secure the development of self-governing institutions; and

(iii) the safeguarding of the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants.​

Most Respectfully,
R

What does that have to do with Britain maintaining a military presence for basically a civilian mandate?

(COMMENT)

The Allied Powers THEN (just the same as now) have a military presence in many theaters and countries around the world. It doesn't mean that the presences constitutes an "Occupation Force."

The military presence is to lend what support is necessary for the maintenance of law and order for the Civil Administration, and a defensive deterrent.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Occupation is defined by the Hague Convention.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, I think you misunderstand.

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

Britain created all of the violence by not following the Covenant.

(COMMENT)

The Covenant makes no specific reference, promise or obligation to the regional inhabitance that would come to be known later as Arab Palestinians. The Covenant refers to "Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire." What constituted the territory of Palestine in 1919, had not been decided yet. The "certain communities" may or may not have included Palestine, within such boundaries as may have been determined later by the Principal Allied Powers.

The obligations of the Mandatory, written by the same authors as wrote the Covenant, were articulated in the Mandate issued by the Allied Powers.

The principal obligations of the mandatory Power are defined in Article 2 of the Mandate. This Article appears to give equal weight to three obligations:

(i) the creation of conditions which would secure the establishment of the Jewish national home;

(ii) the creation of conditions which would secure the development of self-governing institutions; and

(iii) the safeguarding of the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants.​

Most Respectfully,
R

What does that have to do with Britain maintaining a military presence for basically a civilian mandate?

(COMMENT)

The Allied Powers THEN (just the same as now) have a military presence in many theaters and countries around the world. It doesn't mean that the presences constitutes an "Occupation Force."

The military presence is to lend what support is necessary for the maintenance of law and order for the Civil Administration, and a defensive deterrent.

Most Respectfully,
R

Are you saying that the Palestinians did not already have local governments with police departments that were, more or less, sufficient for their needs?

Palestine was an A mandate it was already a functioning country. They needed some assistance, that the mandate was to provide, to set up a national government.

After 30 years Britain had still not established a functioning government.