Civilians vs Combatents

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, Shusha, et al,

Yes, our friend "Shusha" has it correct. The "right to (Fill In the Blank)" is a theoretical construct of the mind. Just because you believe you have a "right" to something today, does not mean that the "right" always existed; and it does not mean that the "right" will always exist now and into the future. A theoretical construct does not actually confers anything of a tangible nature.

The evolution that Kantorowicz described is formative, for sovereignty is a signature feature of modern politics. Some scholars have doubted whether a stable, essential notion of sovereignty exists. But there is in fact a definition that captures what sovereignty came to mean in early modern Europe and of which most subsequent definitions are a variant: supreme authority within a territory. This is the quality that early modern states possessed, but which popes, emperors, kings, bishops, and most nobles and vassals during the Middle Ages lacked.
SOURCE: Second Paragraph in Section ---1. A Definition of Sovereignty --- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
​

You keep confusing military control (occupation) with the right to sovereignty.

You keep forgetting that the "right to sovereignty", if such a thing indeed exists in law, would apply to BOTH peoples and not just the one.

You also keep forgetting that the "right to sovereignty" is not actual sovereignty.

(COMMENT)

The "right to sovereignty" is a dilemma. It pits the turn of the century (binding only in so far as the UN Charter supports it in Chapter I) concept (A/RES/50/172 27 February 1996) against the reality reality of real events.

1. Reiterates that, by virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, all peoples have the right, freely and without external interference, to determine their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and that every State has the duty to respect that right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter;

----------------------------- VERSUS -----------------------------​

6. Condemns any act of armed aggression or threat or use of force against peoples, their elected Governments or their legitimate leaders;

7. Reaffirms that all countries have the obligation under the Charter to respect the right of others to self-determination and to determine freely their political status and pursue their economic, social and cultural development;
​

Under these human constructs, the people of Israel have the right to freely, and without external interference, determine their political status; --- and the Arab Palestinian are condemned for any acts of jihad or armed struggle --- and the use of force, intimidation or coercion against the People of Israelis, their elected Government and legitimate leaders. Having this "right" does not prevent the necessity for the People of Israel from having to defend itself every single day from attempting to use force against the Israeli People to alter government policy and prevent further acts of aggression. This previous history of aggression includes activities like that of the 1948 Arab League invasion, the staging and deployment of heavily armed Arab forces on the border, and the closure of the Titan Straits in 1967, and surprise attack by Arab League forces in 1973.

Most Respectfully,
R

1. Reiterates that, by virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, all peoples have the right, freely and without external interference, to determine their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and that every State has the duty to respect that right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter;​

There are UN resolutions specifying those rights for Palestinians.

Do you have any specifying those rights for Israelis?

Link?

 

[Shusha]

1. Reiterates that, by virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, all peoples have the right, freely and without external interference, to determine their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and that every State has the duty to respect that right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter;​

There are UN resolutions specifying those rights for Palestinians.

Do you have any specifying those rights for Israelis?

Would you please listen to your own claims? If the right of peoples to self-determination, sovereignty or whatever it is that you are arguing this week, is inherent -- then it does NOT NEED to be specified or granted. Make up your mind. Either those rights are inherent - in which case both peoples have them. Or those rights must be granted in which case Rocco is entirely correct that they were never granted to specifically to the Palestinians but they were granted to the Jewish people in the terms of agreements speaking of a Jewish National Home.

You need to be really clear here which you are arguing. You switch back and forth like a pendulum depending on which way the wind blows on any given day. Are the Palestinians rights inherent? Yes or no?

 

[P F Tinmore]

1. Reiterates that, by virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, all peoples have the right, freely and without external interference, to determine their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and that every State has the duty to respect that right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter;​

There are UN resolutions specifying those rights for Palestinians.

Do you have any specifying those rights for Israelis?

Would you please listen to your own claims? If the right of peoples to self-determination, sovereignty or whatever it is that you are arguing this week, is inherent -- then it does NOT NEED to be specified or granted. Make up your mind. Either those rights are inherent - in which case both peoples have them. Or those rights must be granted in which case Rocco is entirely correct that they were never granted to specifically to the Palestinians but they were granted to the Jewish people in the terms of agreements speaking of a Jewish National Home.

You need to be really clear here which you are arguing. You switch back and forth like a pendulum depending on which way the wind blows on any given day. Are the Palestinians rights inherent? Yes or no?

Of course the Palestinian's rights are inherent. That is universal. I haven't flopped around at all. I have always held that position.

Here we have to follow the timeline carefully. The signing of the Treaty of Lausanne was the turning point. Britain occupied Palestine until the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne. Whatever Britain did before that became irrelevant. The rules had changed. Palestine changed from an occupied territory to a successor state. Britain's duties and restrictions fell under a different body of law. Palestine's borders were defined by post war treaties. Those became Palestine's international borders. At that time the inhabitants inside that defined territory legally became Palestinian nationals and citizens of Palestine.

As the legal people inside a defined territory, the Palestinian's inherent rights were set.

 

[Shusha]

Of course the Palestinian's rights are inherent. ..

Then the Jewish people's rights are also inherent. Full stop.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Of course the Palestinian's rights are inherent. ..

Then the Jewish people's rights are also inherent. Full stop.

When did they become a legal people inside a defined territory?

 

[Hollie]

Of course the Palestinian's rights are inherent. ..

Then the Jewish people's rights are also inherent. Full stop.

When did they become a legal people inside a defined territory?

How did you so sweepingly miss your self-contradictory / self-refuting argument?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Of course the Palestinian's rights are inherent. ..

Then the Jewish people's rights are also inherent. Full stop.

When did they become a legal people inside a defined territory?

How did you so sweepingly miss your self-contradictory / self-refuting argument?

Where was that?

 

[Shusha]

Of course the Palestinian's rights are inherent. ..

Then the Jewish people's rights are also inherent. Full stop.

When did they become a legal people inside a defined territory?

Are the Palestinians peoples rights inherent? Or do they obtain these rights only when they become a legal people? How is "legal peoplehood" obtained? What instrument of international law grants such rights?

Are the Palestinian peoples rights inherent? Or do they obtain these rights only when they have a defined territory?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Of course the Palestinian's rights are inherent. ..

Then the Jewish people's rights are also inherent. Full stop.

When did they become a legal people inside a defined territory?

Are the Palestinians peoples rights inherent? Or do they obtain these rights only when they become a legal people? How is "legal peoplehood" obtained? What instrument of international law grants such rights?

Are the Palestinian peoples rights inherent? Or do they obtain these rights only when they have a defined territory?

It is the people of the place who have rights. The French have these rights in France. The British have these rights in Britain. The French cannot go to Britain and claim rights. The are not the people of that place.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you have jumped the track here.

Preamble
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Article 2
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty. UDHR

The idea of Universal Rights (inherent/inalienable) adds nothing to the claim; it does not aid your argument. It merely states that all have the same rights.

You switch back and forth like a pendulum depending on which way the wind blows on any given day. Are the Palestinians rights inherent? Yes or no?

Of course the Palestinian's rights are inherent. That is universal. I haven't flopped around at all. I have always held that position.

(COMMENT)

Again, if the Arab Palestinian has inherent rights, then the Israelis have the very same Human Rights. THEN we fall right back to the discussion and Comment of Post #300.

Here we have to follow the timeline carefully. The signing of the Treaty of Lausanne was the turning point. Britain occupied Palestine until the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne. Whatever Britain did before that became irrelevant. The rules had changed. Palestine changed from an occupied territory to a successor state. Britain's duties and restrictions fell under a different body of law. Palestine's borders were defined by post war treaties. Those became Palestine's international borders. At that time the inhabitants inside that defined territory legally became Palestinian nationals and citizens of Palestine.

(COMMENT)

The Treaty of Lausanne did not have an impact on either the League Mandate System or the Mandate for Palestine in any way shape or form; with the possible exception that Article 16 gives the Allied Powers the explicit authority to the control of the future for these territories (no interpretation required).

POLITICAL CLAUSES
ARTICLE 16.
Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned. Treaty of Lausanne

Do not confuse Article 30 of the treaty to award anything special to the Palestinians. Article 30 was to insure that there were no "stateless people" as a result of a change in sovereignty. Hence the Palestine Order and the Citizenship Orders set the stage for the Mandatory Government to issue citizenship and identify documents for the territories.

As the legal people inside a defined territory, the Palestinian's inherent rights were set.

(COMMENT)

The habitual resident in territory did not establish the territory, or define the territorial limits.

In the larger context, the inhabitance (Arab and Jewish) of the territory under the Mandate for Palestine, all had the very same citizenship under the very same authority.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm not sure where you get these funny ideas that fill your head.

Of course the Palestinian's rights are inherent. ..

Then the Jewish people's rights are also inherent. Full stop.

When did they become a legal people inside a defined territory?

(COMMENT)

The legal inhabitance of the territory to which the Mandate Applied, is by the granting of the citizenship, legal.

The idea that "legal people inside a defined territory" only makes sense if these legal people are recognized by the Mandatory.

The Allied Powers were granted the rights and title to the territories, and to determine the future of the territory. In large part, that Article 16 Authority was delegated to the Mandatory within the limits of the Mandate.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you have jumped the track here.

Preamble
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Article 2
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty. UDHR

The idea of Universal Rights (inherent/inalienable) adds nothing to the claim; it does not aid your argument. It merely states that all have the same rights.

You switch back and forth like a pendulum depending on which way the wind blows on any given day. Are the Palestinians rights inherent? Yes or no?

Of course the Palestinian's rights are inherent. That is universal. I haven't flopped around at all. I have always held that position.

(COMMENT)

Again, if the Arab Palestinian has inherent rights, then the Israelis have the very same Human Rights. THEN we fall right back to the discussion and Comment of Post #300.

Here we have to follow the timeline carefully. The signing of the Treaty of Lausanne was the turning point. Britain occupied Palestine until the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne. Whatever Britain did before that became irrelevant. The rules had changed. Palestine changed from an occupied territory to a successor state. Britain's duties and restrictions fell under a different body of law. Palestine's borders were defined by post war treaties. Those became Palestine's international borders. At that time the inhabitants inside that defined territory legally became Palestinian nationals and citizens of Palestine.

(COMMENT)

The Treaty of Lausanne did not have an impact on either the League Mandate System or the Mandate for Palestine in any way shape or form; with the possible exception that Article 16 gives the Allied Powers the explicit authority to the control of the future for these territories (no interpretation required).

POLITICAL CLAUSES
ARTICLE 16.
Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned. Treaty of Lausanne

Do not confuse Article 30 of the treaty to award anything special to the Palestinians. Article 30 was to insure that there were no "stateless people" as a result of a change in sovereignty. Hence the Palestine Order and the Citizenship Orders set the stage for the Mandatory Government to issue citizenship and identify documents for the territories.

As the legal people inside a defined territory, the Palestinian's inherent rights were set.

(COMMENT)

The habitual resident in territory did not establish the territory, or define the territorial limits.

In the larger context, the inhabitance (Arab and Jewish) of the territory under the Mandate for Palestine, all had the very same citizenship under the very same authority.

Most Respectfully,
R

That is why the timeline is critical. The Mandate did not commence until about two months after Palestine became a successor state. Anything Britain did had to conform to the Rights of the Palestinians.

 

[Shusha]

It is the people of the place who have rights. The French have these rights in France. The British have these rights in Britain. The French cannot go to Britain and claim rights. The are not the people of that place.

Oh! Come on now! Surely you aren't going to claim that the Jewish people aren't a "people of the place". Because that would be silly.

What you are going to try to claim is that ONLY people who were residents from what, 1923? were the people of the place. And you are going to try to claim that self-determination does not include self-identification or the rights to control immigration.

Of course, you are going to apply your double standards there as well.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore,

What in the hell are you taking about.

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you have jumped the track here.

Preamble
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Article 2
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty. UDHR

The idea of Universal Rights (inherent/inalienable) adds nothing to the claim; it does not aid your argument. It merely states that all have the same rights.

You switch back and forth like a pendulum depending on which way the wind blows on any given day. Are the Palestinians rights inherent? Yes or no?

Of course the Palestinian's rights are inherent. That is universal. I haven't flopped around at all. I have always held that position.

(COMMENT)

Again, if the Arab Palestinian has inherent rights, then the Israelis have the very same Human Rights. THEN we fall right back to the discussion and Comment of Post #300.

Here we have to follow the timeline carefully. The signing of the Treaty of Lausanne was the turning point. Britain occupied Palestine until the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne. Whatever Britain did before that became irrelevant. The rules had changed. Palestine changed from an occupied territory to a successor state. Britain's duties and restrictions fell under a different body of law. Palestine's borders were defined by post war treaties. Those became Palestine's international borders. At that time the inhabitants inside that defined territory legally became Palestinian nationals and citizens of Palestine.

(COMMENT)

The Treaty of Lausanne did not have an impact on either the League Mandate System or the Mandate for Palestine in any way shape or form; with the possible exception that Article 16 gives the Allied Powers the explicit authority to the control of the future for these territories (no interpretation required).

POLITICAL CLAUSES
ARTICLE 16.
Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned. Treaty of Lausanne

Do not confuse Article 30 of the treaty to award anything special to the Palestinians. Article 30 was to insure that there were no "stateless people" as a result of a change in sovereignty. Hence the Palestine Order and the Citizenship Orders set the stage for the Mandatory Government to issue citizenship and identify documents for the territories.

As the legal people inside a defined territory, the Palestinian's inherent rights were set.

(COMMENT)

The habitual resident in territory did not establish the territory, or define the territorial limits.

In the larger context, the inhabitance (Arab and Jewish) of the territory under the Mandate for Palestine, all had the very same citizenship under the very same authority.

Most Respectfully,
R

That is why the timeline is critical. The Mandate did not commence until about two months after Palestine became a successor state. Anything Britain did had to conform to the Rights of the Palestinians.

(COMMENT)

The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (EOTA) was a military administration over the territory to be laced under Mandate from the former Ottoman Empire between 1918–20. There was no defined Palestine in that period. In mid 1920, the EOTA handed- its authority to the UK Civil Administration. The Franco-British Boundary Agreements, that established a Joint Border Commission, which gave their results to the Britain and France governments --- before they assumed their Mandatory responsibilities on 29 September 1923. Treaty of Lausanne was signed on 24 July 1923, the Mandate for Palestine became effective in September 1923.

Again what are you talking about? Where is your conflict?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore,

What in the hell are you taking about.

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you have jumped the track here.

Preamble
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Article 2
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty. UDHR

The idea of Universal Rights (inherent/inalienable) adds nothing to the claim; it does not aid your argument. It merely states that all have the same rights.

You switch back and forth like a pendulum depending on which way the wind blows on any given day. Are the Palestinians rights inherent? Yes or no?

Of course the Palestinian's rights are inherent. That is universal. I haven't flopped around at all. I have always held that position.

(COMMENT)

Again, if the Arab Palestinian has inherent rights, then the Israelis have the very same Human Rights. THEN we fall right back to the discussion and Comment of Post #300.

Here we have to follow the timeline carefully. The signing of the Treaty of Lausanne was the turning point. Britain occupied Palestine until the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne. Whatever Britain did before that became irrelevant. The rules had changed. Palestine changed from an occupied territory to a successor state. Britain's duties and restrictions fell under a different body of law. Palestine's borders were defined by post war treaties. Those became Palestine's international borders. At that time the inhabitants inside that defined territory legally became Palestinian nationals and citizens of Palestine.

(COMMENT)

The Treaty of Lausanne did not have an impact on either the League Mandate System or the Mandate for Palestine in any way shape or form; with the possible exception that Article 16 gives the Allied Powers the explicit authority to the control of the future for these territories (no interpretation required).

POLITICAL CLAUSES
ARTICLE 16.
Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned. Treaty of Lausanne

Do not confuse Article 30 of the treaty to award anything special to the Palestinians. Article 30 was to insure that there were no "stateless people" as a result of a change in sovereignty. Hence the Palestine Order and the Citizenship Orders set the stage for the Mandatory Government to issue citizenship and identify documents for the territories.

As the legal people inside a defined territory, the Palestinian's inherent rights were set.

(COMMENT)

The habitual resident in territory did not establish the territory, or define the territorial limits.

In the larger context, the inhabitance (Arab and Jewish) of the territory under the Mandate for Palestine, all had the very same citizenship under the very same authority.

Most Respectfully,
R

That is why the timeline is critical. The Mandate did not commence until about two months after Palestine became a successor state. Anything Britain did had to conform to the Rights of the Palestinians.

(COMMENT)

The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (EOTA) was a military administration over the territory to be laced under Mandate from the former Ottoman Empire between 1918–20. There was no defined Palestine in that period. In mid 1920, the EOTA handed- its authority to the UK Civil Administration. The Franco-British Boundary Agreements, that established a Joint Border Commission, which gave their results to the Britain and France governments --- before they assumed their Mandatory responsibilities on 29 September 1923. Treaty of Lausanne was signed on 24 July 1923, the Mandate for Palestine became effective in September 1923.

Again what are you talking about? Where is your conflict?

Most Respectfully,
R

None of this refutes my post.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The UK became the Mandatory Government of the Territory to which the Mandate was to apply.

P F Tinmore,

What in the hell are you taking about.

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you have jumped the track here.

Preamble
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Article 2
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty. UDHR

The idea of Universal Rights (inherent/inalienable) adds nothing to the claim; it does not aid your argument. It merely states that all have the same rights.

You switch back and forth like a pendulum depending on which way the wind blows on any given day. Are the Palestinians rights inherent? Yes or no?

Of course the Palestinian's rights are inherent. That is universal. I haven't flopped around at all. I have always held that position.

(COMMENT)

Again, if the Arab Palestinian has inherent rights, then the Israelis have the very same Human Rights. THEN we fall right back to the discussion and Comment of Post #300.

Here we have to follow the timeline carefully. The signing of the Treaty of Lausanne was the turning point. Britain occupied Palestine until the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne. Whatever Britain did before that became irrelevant. The rules had changed. Palestine changed from an occupied territory to a successor state. Britain's duties and restrictions fell under a different body of law. Palestine's borders were defined by post war treaties. Those became Palestine's international borders. At that time the inhabitants inside that defined territory legally became Palestinian nationals and citizens of Palestine.

(COMMENT)

The Treaty of Lausanne did not have an impact on either the League Mandate System or the Mandate for Palestine in any way shape or form; with the possible exception that Article 16 gives the Allied Powers the explicit authority to the control of the future for these territories (no interpretation required).

POLITICAL CLAUSES
ARTICLE 16.
Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned. Treaty of Lausanne

Do not confuse Article 30 of the treaty to award anything special to the Palestinians. Article 30 was to insure that there were no "stateless people" as a result of a change in sovereignty. Hence the Palestine Order and the Citizenship Orders set the stage for the Mandatory Government to issue citizenship and identify documents for the territories.

As the legal people inside a defined territory, the Palestinian's inherent rights were set.

(COMMENT)

The habitual resident in territory did not establish the territory, or define the territorial limits.

In the larger context, the inhabitance (Arab and Jewish) of the territory under the Mandate for Palestine, all had the very same citizenship under the very same authority.

Most Respectfully,
R

That is why the timeline is critical. The Mandate did not commence until about two months after Palestine became a successor state. Anything Britain did had to conform to the Rights of the Palestinians.

(COMMENT)

The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (EOTA) was a military administration over the territory to be laced under Mandate from the former Ottoman Empire between 1918–20. There was no defined Palestine in that period. In mid 1920, the EOTA handed- its authority to the UK Civil Administration. The Franco-British Boundary Agreements, that established a Joint Border Commission, which gave their results to the Britain and France governments --- before they assumed their Mandatory responsibilities on 29 September 1923. Treaty of Lausanne was signed on 24 July 1923, the Mandate for Palestine became effective in September 1923.

Again what are you talking about? Where is your conflict?

Most Respectfully,
R

None of this refutes my post.

(COMMENT)

Nothing establishes governmental authority over the territory except by the authority of the Allied Powers.

Palestine is only called "Palestine" by the authority of the Order in Council. There is nothing that grants the Article 16 authority beyond the Allied Powers until the creation of the Mandate.

Nothing you have posted so far has demonstrated an authority transferred beyond Article 16.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The UK became the Mandatory Government of the Territory to which the Mandate was to apply.

P F Tinmore,

What in the hell are you taking about.

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you have jumped the track here.

Preamble
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Article 2
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty. UDHR

The idea of Universal Rights (inherent/inalienable) adds nothing to the claim; it does not aid your argument. It merely states that all have the same rights.

Of course the Palestinian's rights are inherent. That is universal. I haven't flopped around at all. I have always held that position.

(COMMENT)

Again, if the Arab Palestinian has inherent rights, then the Israelis have the very same Human Rights. THEN we fall right back to the discussion and Comment of Post #300.

Here we have to follow the timeline carefully. The signing of the Treaty of Lausanne was the turning point. Britain occupied Palestine until the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne. Whatever Britain did before that became irrelevant. The rules had changed. Palestine changed from an occupied territory to a successor state. Britain's duties and restrictions fell under a different body of law. Palestine's borders were defined by post war treaties. Those became Palestine's international borders. At that time the inhabitants inside that defined territory legally became Palestinian nationals and citizens of Palestine.

(COMMENT)

The Treaty of Lausanne did not have an impact on either the League Mandate System or the Mandate for Palestine in any way shape or form; with the possible exception that Article 16 gives the Allied Powers the explicit authority to the control of the future for these territories (no interpretation required).

POLITICAL CLAUSES
ARTICLE 16.
Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned. Treaty of Lausanne

Do not confuse Article 30 of the treaty to award anything special to the Palestinians. Article 30 was to insure that there were no "stateless people" as a result of a change in sovereignty. Hence the Palestine Order and the Citizenship Orders set the stage for the Mandatory Government to issue citizenship and identify documents for the territories.

As the legal people inside a defined territory, the Palestinian's inherent rights were set.

(COMMENT)

The habitual resident in territory did not establish the territory, or define the territorial limits.

In the larger context, the inhabitance (Arab and Jewish) of the territory under the Mandate for Palestine, all had the very same citizenship under the very same authority.

Most Respectfully,
R

That is why the timeline is critical. The Mandate did not commence until about two months after Palestine became a successor state. Anything Britain did had to conform to the Rights of the Palestinians.

(COMMENT)

The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (EOTA) was a military administration over the territory to be laced under Mandate from the former Ottoman Empire between 1918–20. There was no defined Palestine in that period. In mid 1920, the EOTA handed- its authority to the UK Civil Administration. The Franco-British Boundary Agreements, that established a Joint Border Commission, which gave their results to the Britain and France governments --- before they assumed their Mandatory responsibilities on 29 September 1923. Treaty of Lausanne was signed on 24 July 1923, the Mandate for Palestine became effective in September 1923.

Again what are you talking about? Where is your conflict?

Most Respectfully,
R

None of this refutes my post.

(COMMENT)

Nothing establishes governmental authority over the territory except by the authority of the Allied Powers.

Palestine is only called "Palestine" by the authority of the Order in Council. There is nothing that grants the Article 16 authority beyond the Allied Powers until the creation of the Mandate.

Nothing you have posted so far has demonstrated an authority transferred beyond Article 16.

Most Respectfully,
R

Still nothing refutes my post.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Every issue in your post was addressed.

Still nothing refutes my post.

(COMMENT)

Nothing in your post grants the Palestinians anything tangible. The Palestinians have no special rights; above that which all people have.

The treaties grant no title or rights to the Palestinians, that is unique to them; and no territorial rights or privileges are granted to the Palestinians.

Relative to the factual points and context of the discussion, none of your counterpoints (as jumbled-up and dis orientated as they are) have survived.

Any inherent rights that is claimed and pointed out as applicable to the Palestinians, is also (by the nature of being a inherent right) applicable to the Israelis. If you claim an inherent right for the Palestinian, then simultaneously you have also extended and defended that right to the Israelis (and the rest of the world).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Every issue in your post was addressed.

Still nothing refutes my post.

(COMMENT)

Nothing in your post grants the Palestinians anything tangible. The Palestinians have no special rights; above that which all people have.

The treaties grant no title or rights to the Palestinians, that is unique to them; and no territorial rights or privileges are granted to the Palestinians.

Relative to the factual points and context of the discussion, none of your counterpoints (as jumbled-up and dis orientated as they are) have survived.

Any inherent rights that is claimed and pointed out as applicable to the Palestinians, is also (by the nature of being a inherent right) applicable to the Israelis. If you claim an inherent right for the Palestinian, then simultaneously you have also extended and defended that right to the Israelis (and the rest of the world).

Most Respectfully,
R

You are contradicting yourself. Look at the standard list of rights. The UN states that the Palestinians, in Palestine, have these rights. There have been no similar statements for the Israelis.

What is the meaning of "in Palestine" if the Palestinians have no territory?

• The right to self determination without external interference.

External to what if there is no territory?

• The right to independence and sovereignty.

What does this mean without territory?

• The right to territorial integrity.

What does this mean without territory?

No smoke.

Just four answers to four simple questions.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh, you don't read very well.

You are contradicting yourself. Look at the standard list of rights. The UN states that the Palestinians, in Palestine, have these rights. There have been no similar statements for the Israelis.

(COMMENT)

OK, you are talking about the UN. The Resolution adopted by the General Assembly A/RES/67/19 Status of Palestine in the United Nations (4 December 2012):

"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,"

1. 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;
​

So we are specifically addressing the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and the City of Jerusalem. None of which were under the exclusive control of the Arab Palestinian at the time they were occupied in 1967 by the Israeli. So none of that territory was taken, in any way shape or form, from the Arab Palestinian.

What is the meaning of "in Palestine" if the Palestinians have no territory?

• The right to self determination without external interference.

(COMMENT)

The meaning of "Palestine" was the territory formerly under the Mandate (1948). In 1988, without objection or preventative action, the Palestine Liberation Organization, as the representative of the Palestinian people, was granted observer status after declaring independence.

Now by virtue of natural, historical and legal rights, and the sacrifices of successive generations who gave of themselves in defense of the freedom and independence of their homeland; In pursuance of Resolutions adopted by Arab Summit Conferences and relying on the authority bestowed by international legitimacy as embodied in the Resolutions of the United Nations Organization since 1947; And in exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its rights to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory, The Palestine National Council, in the name of God, and in the name of the Palestinian Arab people, hereby proclaims the establishment of the State of Palestine on our Palestinian territory with its capital Jerusalem (Al-Quds Ash-Sharif).
SOURCE: Arab League

You will notice that, unlike the Arab League in 1948, Israel did not attempt to obstruct by military force, the the right of self-determination by the Jewish People to establish the Jewish State of Israel; pursuant to the Step Preparatory to Independence under the same authority in the Palestinian Declaration: "international legitimacy as embodied in the Resolutions of the United Nations Organization since 1947."

The Palestine Liberation Organization, as the sole, legitimate representative recognized by the world community as a whole, acknowledge the recognized this event and the conditions.

External to what if there is no territory?

• The right to independence and sovereignty.

(COMMENT)

No one argues the "RIGHT" of independence and self-determination. That question was never even up for debate. Everyone acknowledged fact that in 1988, that transpired.

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. SOURCE: A/53/879 S/1999/334 25 March 1999

THIS bares repeating again: "The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II)," And it is in this acknowledgement we see two things:

• The right of self-determination, independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity;
• We see the acknowledgement of the legitimacy of the Jewish state as outlined in the Resolution.
​

What does this mean without territory?

• The right to territorial integrity.

(COMMENT)

BEFORE you can have territorial integrity, first you must have control of some territory. The "right" to something does not mean you have something. The right to bear arms does not mean you actually have arms. Nor does it mean that if you go to the government and say, you have the right to bear arms, don't expect them to hand you a weapon. The "right" does not means you "have."

What does this mean without territory?

(COMMENT)

Just as in the preceding example; you can have the "right to territorial integrity" and actually NOT have a territory. One does not trump the other.

No smoke.
Just four answers to four simple questions.

(COMMENT)

Yes, 4 simple questions and a reply with for simple answers.

Most Respectfully,
R