Consider The Facts

[Dogmaphobe]

[
Good points. Bottom line is the Palestinians need Israel to better their lives. Let us hope someday, someway the Pali's will understand that.

I think that ship has already sailed. By creating themselves as the perpetual victim, they would compromise all that money that pours in from useful idiots were they to actually turn their efforts to something constructive.

The only real chance came long ago, when the Nazi al-Husseini clan became more influential than the more moderate Nashashibi clan, and .Raghib Nashashibi had to flee due to the Nazi putting a price on his head.

Ever since, the same attitudes have prevailed.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You need to backup and look again.

1 November, 1922: Abolition of Mehmed VI and the Office of the Ottoman Sultan.
29 October, 1923: Independence of the Republic of Turkey.
3 March, 1924: Abdülmecid II and the Office of Ottoman Caliphate did not dissolve until 1924.
6 August 1924: Treaty of Lausanne effective date
SOURCE: CIA Fact Book 2016 Turkey
​

You are confusing your timeline.

From 1917 to the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne, Britain was the occupying power of a large are of land that was still under the sovereignty of the Turks. Two months after that signing Britain began the Mandate for Palestine. Those are two separate sets of rules. What was allowed/required under one set of rules was not necessarily compatible with the other.

By the time Britain took responsibility of its Mandate, Palestine's international borders were defined. Palestinian nationality was already determined by international legal norms and the Treaty of Lausanne. Palestine had already become a successor state.

Britain had to work within those limits and had no authority to change those things.

(COMMENT)

All of Syria was surrendered to the Allied Powers in 1918.

The last Ottoman Sultan was still Ruler until 1 November 1922 (not 1917). However, under Article 16, Mudros Armistice, all Ottoman forces surrendered.

Armistice of Mudros

"Armistice of Mudros, (Oct. 30, 1918), pact signed at the Port of Mudros, on the Aegean island of Lemnos, between the Ottoman Empire and Great Britain (representing the Allied powers) marking the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I (1914–18).

Under the terms of the armistice, the Ottomans surrendered their remaining garrisons in Hejaz, Yemen, Syria, Mesopotamia, Tripolitania, and Cyrenaica; the Allies were to occupy the Straits of the Dardanellesand the Bosporus, Batum (now in southwest Georgia), and the Taurus tunnel system; and the Allies won the right to occupy “in case of disorder” the six Armenian provinces in Anatolia and to seize “any strategic points” in case of a threat to Allied security. The Ottoman army was demobilized, and Turkish ports, railways, and other strategic points were made available for use by the Allies."
​

The Republic of Turkey did not declare Independence until the last quarter 1923. So there could be no Turkish Sovereignty over anything until FIRST there was a Turkey.

Whatever your point was, it could not be dependent on your statement: "From 1917 to the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne, Britain was the occupying power of a large are of land that was still under the sovereignty of the Turks."

The Territory of the former Ottoman Vilayets of Beirut and Damacus, and the Mutasarrifyet of Jerusalem came under the control of the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration (EOTA) (establishing effective control) until July 1920 when the Civil Administration assumed charge.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, but how does that change the premise of my post?

Very simply because your post is shown to be a pack of LIES, and has no link to reality. If Turkey did not exist how could it have sovereignty of land that had been surrendered by the Ottoman empire to the LoN.

You need to look at what you are writing as you are getting more and more confused by the truth

 

[Phoenall]

Well that was entertaining. Four excelant explanations and then we get a

Quote

OK, but how does that change the premise of my post?

End Quote

WOW

It negates your post completely is what it does. All of our explanations do. There was never a state of palestine.

Where does Rocco's post say that?

Where does it say in any official papers of that era that Palestine was a state, and that sovereignty was passed to the arab muslim immigrants to turn it into yet another failed Islamic caliphate

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Britain took the responsibility for the EOTA and the Civil Administration well before the Mandate for Palestine was culminated.

P F Tinmore, et al,

You need to backup and look again.

1 November, 1922: Abolition of Mehmed VI and the Office of the Ottoman Sultan.
29 October, 1923: Independence of the Republic of Turkey.
3 March, 1924: Abdülmecid II and the Office of Ottoman Caliphate did not dissolve until 1924.
6 August 1924: Treaty of Lausanne effective date
SOURCE: CIA Fact Book 2016 Turkey
​

You are confusing your timeline.

From 1917 to the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne, Britain was the occupying power of a large are of land that was still under the sovereignty of the Turks. Two months after that signing Britain began the Mandate for Palestine. Those are two separate sets of rules. What was allowed/required under one set of rules was not necessarily compatible with the other.

By the time Britain took responsibility of its Mandate, Palestine's international borders were defined. Palestinian nationality was already determined by international legal norms and the Treaty of Lausanne. Palestine had already become a successor state.

Britain had to work within those limits and had no authority to change those things.

(COMMENT)

All of Syria was surrendered to the Allied Powers in 1918.

The last Ottoman Sultan was still Ruler until 1 November 1922 (not 1917). However, under Article 16, Mudros Armistice, all Ottoman forces surrendered.

Armistice of Mudros

"Armistice of Mudros, (Oct. 30, 1918), pact signed at the Port of Mudros, on the Aegean island of Lemnos, between the Ottoman Empire and Great Britain (representing the Allied powers) marking the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I (1914–18).

Under the terms of the armistice, the Ottomans surrendered their remaining garrisons in Hejaz, Yemen, Syria, Mesopotamia, Tripolitania, and Cyrenaica; the Allies were to occupy the Straits of the Dardanellesand the Bosporus, Batum (now in southwest Georgia), and the Taurus tunnel system; and the Allies won the right to occupy “in case of disorder” the six Armenian provinces in Anatolia and to seize “any strategic points” in case of a threat to Allied security. The Ottoman army was demobilized, and Turkish ports, railways, and other strategic points were made available for use by the Allies."
​

The Republic of Turkey did not declare Independence until the last quarter 1923. So there could be no Turkish Sovereignty over anything until FIRST there was a Turkey.

Whatever your point was, it could not be dependent on your statement: "From 1917 to the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne, Britain was the occupying power of a large are of land that was still under the sovereignty of the Turks."

The Territory of the former Ottoman Vilayets of Beirut and Damacus, and the Mutasarrifyet of Jerusalem came under the control of the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration (EOTA) (establishing effective control) until July 1920 when the Civil Administration assumed charge.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, but how does that change the premise of my post?

(COMMENT)

The Treaty of Lausanne (written by the Allied Powers) does not conflict with the:

• San Remo Agreement (Written by the Allied Powers)
• Palestine Order in Council (Written by the Allied Powers)
• Mandate for Palestine (Written by the Allied Powers)
​

The Allied Powers did not write conflicting document at cross-purposes to their intent. There is nothing special about the Treaty of Lausanne relative to the Mandatory Power issuing Nationality and Citizenship guidance for the Territory under the administration of the Mandate.

No, the Government of Palestine was to be determined by the Allied Powers. The future of Palestine (the territory to which the Mandate Applied) was to be determined by Allied Powers:

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.
​

It must be remembered that, nowhere in the Treaty of Lausanne, is the Government of Palestine (GoP) mentioned. The succession is blanket by Article 16.

Separately, the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) made note that:

• On May 20th, 1920, the Mandate for Palestine had been given to Great Britain and on July 1st the British Government replaced its military occupation of Palestine by a civil administration.
​

Further, the PICJ made the association (at the time of that Judgement) there was an association between the Government of Palestine and consequently also on the part of His Britannic Majesty's Government, in its capacity as Mandatory Power for Palestine.

The Government of the Greek Republic, by an application filed with the Registry of the Court on May 13th, 1924, in accordance with Article 40 of the Statute and Article 35 of the Rules of Court, has submitted to the Permanent Court of International Justice a suit arising out of the alleged refusal on the part of the
Government of Palestine and consequently also on the part of His Britannic Majesty's Government, in its capacity as Mandatory Power for Palestine, since the year 1921, to recognize to their full extent the rights acquired by M. Mavrommatis, a Greek subject,under contracts and agreements concluded by him with the Ottoman authorities, in regard to concessions for certain public works to be constructed in Palestine.
SOURCE: PCIJ Judgement #5 --- 26 March 1925.
​

In that part of the timeline, His Britannic Majesty's Government, in its capacity as Mandatory Power was the Government of Palestine, not only with the rights --- but also the obligations. The Treaty make no change to that determination; Article 16 applies.

The PCIJ recognizes the Mandatory as the successor to the rights, as well as obligations incurred, acting as the Government for Palestine. This is consistent with the Order in Council and the Mandate itself.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, but Palestine was still a successor state. The nationality is Palestinian and they are citizens of Palestine. They have inalienable rights as confirmed by subsequent UN resolutions.

Where does it state that in any of the treaties of that era, they deliberately omit any mention of Palestine being a successor state because there was never a state of Palestine.
Their nationality was not Palestinian but mandatory Palestinian, and the rights they had in 1988 did not exist in 1917 so cant be granted retrospectively. This means they had no rights to sovereignty over the land until the law granted them such rights. So until the law grants them right of return they don't have that right until the day it is passed, they have shown their free determination many times so that right has never been breached nor has their right to defend themselves ( this is not the same as attacking which you get confused about, if they attack Israel then they don't have a right to claim self defence )

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Britain took the responsibility for the EOTA and the Civil Administration well before the Mandate for Palestine was culminated.

P F Tinmore, et al,

You need to backup and look again.

1 November, 1922: Abolition of Mehmed VI and the Office of the Ottoman Sultan.
29 October, 1923: Independence of the Republic of Turkey.
3 March, 1924: Abdülmecid II and the Office of Ottoman Caliphate did not dissolve until 1924.
6 August 1924: Treaty of Lausanne effective date
SOURCE: CIA Fact Book 2016 Turkey
​

You are confusing your timeline.

From 1917 to the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne, Britain was the occupying power of a large are of land that was still under the sovereignty of the Turks. Two months after that signing Britain began the Mandate for Palestine. Those are two separate sets of rules. What was allowed/required under one set of rules was not necessarily compatible with the other.

By the time Britain took responsibility of its Mandate, Palestine's international borders were defined. Palestinian nationality was already determined by international legal norms and the Treaty of Lausanne. Palestine had already become a successor state.

Britain had to work within those limits and had no authority to change those things.

(COMMENT)

All of Syria was surrendered to the Allied Powers in 1918.

The last Ottoman Sultan was still Ruler until 1 November 1922 (not 1917). However, under Article 16, Mudros Armistice, all Ottoman forces surrendered.

Armistice of Mudros

"Armistice of Mudros, (Oct. 30, 1918), pact signed at the Port of Mudros, on the Aegean island of Lemnos, between the Ottoman Empire and Great Britain (representing the Allied powers) marking the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I (1914–18).

Under the terms of the armistice, the Ottomans surrendered their remaining garrisons in Hejaz, Yemen, Syria, Mesopotamia, Tripolitania, and Cyrenaica; the Allies were to occupy the Straits of the Dardanellesand the Bosporus, Batum (now in southwest Georgia), and the Taurus tunnel system; and the Allies won the right to occupy “in case of disorder” the six Armenian provinces in Anatolia and to seize “any strategic points” in case of a threat to Allied security. The Ottoman army was demobilized, and Turkish ports, railways, and other strategic points were made available for use by the Allies."
​

The Republic of Turkey did not declare Independence until the last quarter 1923. So there could be no Turkish Sovereignty over anything until FIRST there was a Turkey.

Whatever your point was, it could not be dependent on your statement: "From 1917 to the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne, Britain was the occupying power of a large are of land that was still under the sovereignty of the Turks."

The Territory of the former Ottoman Vilayets of Beirut and Damacus, and the Mutasarrifyet of Jerusalem came under the control of the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration (EOTA) (establishing effective control) until July 1920 when the Civil Administration assumed charge.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, but how does that change the premise of my post?

(COMMENT)

The Treaty of Lausanne (written by the Allied Powers) does not conflict with the:

• San Remo Agreement (Written by the Allied Powers)
• Palestine Order in Council (Written by the Allied Powers)
• Mandate for Palestine (Written by the Allied Powers)
​

The Allied Powers did not write conflicting document at cross-purposes to their intent. There is nothing special about the Treaty of Lausanne relative to the Mandatory Power issuing Nationality and Citizenship guidance for the Territory under the administration of the Mandate.

No, the Government of Palestine was to be determined by the Allied Powers. The future of Palestine (the territory to which the Mandate Applied) was to be determined by Allied Powers:

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.
​

It must be remembered that, nowhere in the Treaty of Lausanne, is the Government of Palestine (GoP) mentioned. The succession is blanket by Article 16.

Separately, the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) made note that:

• On May 20th, 1920, the Mandate for Palestine had been given to Great Britain and on July 1st the British Government replaced its military occupation of Palestine by a civil administration.
​

Further, the PICJ made the association (at the time of that Judgement) there was an association between the Government of Palestine and consequently also on the part of His Britannic Majesty's Government, in its capacity as Mandatory Power for Palestine.

The Government of the Greek Republic, by an application filed with the Registry of the Court on May 13th, 1924, in accordance with Article 40 of the Statute and Article 35 of the Rules of Court, has submitted to the Permanent Court of International Justice a suit arising out of the alleged refusal on the part of the
Government of Palestine and consequently also on the part of His Britannic Majesty's Government, in its capacity as Mandatory Power for Palestine, since the year 1921, to recognize to their full extent the rights acquired by M. Mavrommatis, a Greek subject,under contracts and agreements concluded by him with the Ottoman authorities, in regard to concessions for certain public works to be constructed in Palestine.
SOURCE: PCIJ Judgement #5 --- 26 March 1925.
​

In that part of the timeline, His Britannic Majesty's Government, in its capacity as Mandatory Power was the Government of Palestine, not only with the rights --- but also the obligations. The Treaty make no change to that determination; Article 16 applies.

The PCIJ recognizes the Mandatory as the successor to the rights, as well as obligations incurred, acting as the Government for Palestine. This is consistent with the Order in Council and the Mandate itself.

Most Respectfully,
R

The PCIJ recognizes the Mandatory as the successor to the rights, as well as obligations incurred, acting as the Government for Palestine.​

The Mandatory was a temporarily assigned administration of Palestine. Palestine existed separate from the Mandate.

LINK ?


Again you are confusing the Mandate of Palestine being a legal entity and the British mandate being a temporary administration. They are not the same thing

 

[RoccoR]

MJB12741, et al,

I think maybe I've unintentionally sidetracked the discussion.

"Truth" is an enigma in the eye of the beholder. If a young child is taught that a square is round & you ask the child to tell the truth & the child replies a square is round, is he or she not telling the truth?

Facts however are documented. Let us consider the facts regarding the truth as to the Palestinians.

The Truth about the Palestinian People

(COMMENT)

I thought it was interesting that a key member of the Middle East Quartet [(United Nations, the United States, Russia and the European Union)] spoke-up having an Крещение (epiphany) and joining the rest of the Quartet. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told Foreign Ministry Director-General Dore Gold on Thursday that Russia is keen on seeing the Israeli-Palestinian peace process resume. It shows some agreement between the Quartet on the issue of re-igniting Palestinian-Israeli negotiations without preconditions. Surprising even though Three members of the Quartet have been extremely critical of Israel most recent interaction with the Arab Palestinians. This has created an unbalanced dynamic in diplomatic sentiment. Looking at the Middle East from the Big Picture view, the politics is further complicated by the extremely confusing and developing relationships between NATO Turkey, the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK)(a paramilitary group and designated Terrorist Organization), and the struggle with DAESH (ISIS/ISIL) and its Opposing Forces.

If DAESH stabilizes, it could result in the redrawing the Border Lines. In the mean time, the pro-Palestinian Terrorist Group Hezbollah is not without it meddling. Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah Leader, is accusing Saudi Arabian and Turkey of pushing for the continuation of the anti-DAESH conflict. It is not immediately clear if Hezbollah is accusing them of forming a conspiracy, or if the two countries are independently working the issue from two different perspectives.

(SIDE BAR)

Oddly enough, the objectives of the PKK and struggle with Turkey in search or their national identity, is not so different from that of the Arab Palestinian and its relationship with Israel. And just as odd, is the fact that the origins of the conflict dates back to before the Treaty of Sevres (1920); and the lack in the fulfillment of Part I - Section III, on establishment of the independent Kurdish State.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

That would be 100% wrong.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Britain took the responsibility for the EOTA and the Civil Administration well before the Mandate for Palestine was culminated.

P F Tinmore, et al,

You need to backup and look again.

1 November, 1922: Abolition of Mehmed VI and the Office of the Ottoman Sultan.
29 October, 1923: Independence of the Republic of Turkey.
3 March, 1924: Abdülmecid II and the Office of Ottoman Caliphate did not dissolve until 1924.
6 August 1924: Treaty of Lausanne effective date
SOURCE: CIA Fact Book 2016 Turkey
​

You are confusing your timeline.

From 1917 to the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne, Britain was the occupying power of a large are of land that was still under the sovereignty of the Turks. Two months after that signing Britain began the Mandate for Palestine. Those are two separate sets of rules. What was allowed/required under one set of rules was not necessarily compatible with the other.

By the time Britain took responsibility of its Mandate, Palestine's international borders were defined. Palestinian nationality was already determined by international legal norms and the Treaty of Lausanne. Palestine had already become a successor state.

Britain had to work within those limits and had no authority to change those things.

(COMMENT)

All of Syria was surrendered to the Allied Powers in 1918.

The last Ottoman Sultan was still Ruler until 1 November 1922 (not 1917). However, under Article 16, Mudros Armistice, all Ottoman forces surrendered.

Armistice of Mudros

"Armistice of Mudros, (Oct. 30, 1918), pact signed at the Port of Mudros, on the Aegean island of Lemnos, between the Ottoman Empire and Great Britain (representing the Allied powers) marking the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I (1914–18).

Under the terms of the armistice, the Ottomans surrendered their remaining garrisons in Hejaz, Yemen, Syria, Mesopotamia, Tripolitania, and Cyrenaica; the Allies were to occupy the Straits of the Dardanellesand the Bosporus, Batum (now in southwest Georgia), and the Taurus tunnel system; and the Allies won the right to occupy “in case of disorder” the six Armenian provinces in Anatolia and to seize “any strategic points” in case of a threat to Allied security. The Ottoman army was demobilized, and Turkish ports, railways, and other strategic points were made available for use by the Allies."
​

The Republic of Turkey did not declare Independence until the last quarter 1923. So there could be no Turkish Sovereignty over anything until FIRST there was a Turkey.

Whatever your point was, it could not be dependent on your statement: "From 1917 to the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne, Britain was the occupying power of a large are of land that was still under the sovereignty of the Turks."

The Territory of the former Ottoman Vilayets of Beirut and Damacus, and the Mutasarrifyet of Jerusalem came under the control of the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration (EOTA) (establishing effective control) until July 1920 when the Civil Administration assumed charge.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, but how does that change the premise of my post?

(COMMENT)

The Treaty of Lausanne (written by the Allied Powers) does not conflict with the:

• San Remo Agreement (Written by the Allied Powers)
• Palestine Order in Council (Written by the Allied Powers)
• Mandate for Palestine (Written by the Allied Powers)
​

The Allied Powers did not write conflicting document at cross-purposes to their intent. There is nothing special about the Treaty of Lausanne relative to the Mandatory Power issuing Nationality and Citizenship guidance for the Territory under the administration of the Mandate.

No, the Government of Palestine was to be determined by the Allied Powers. The future of Palestine (the territory to which the Mandate Applied) was to be determined by Allied Powers:

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.
​

It must be remembered that, nowhere in the Treaty of Lausanne, is the Government of Palestine (GoP) mentioned. The succession is blanket by Article 16.

Separately, the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) made note that:

• On May 20th, 1920, the Mandate for Palestine had been given to Great Britain and on July 1st the British Government replaced its military occupation of Palestine by a civil administration.
​

Further, the PICJ made the association (at the time of that Judgement) there was an association between the Government of Palestine and consequently also on the part of His Britannic Majesty's Government, in its capacity as Mandatory Power for Palestine.

The Government of the Greek Republic, by an application filed with the Registry of the Court on May 13th, 1924, in accordance with Article 40 of the Statute and Article 35 of the Rules of Court, has submitted to the Permanent Court of International Justice a suit arising out of the alleged refusal on the part of the
Government of Palestine and consequently also on the part of His Britannic Majesty's Government, in its capacity as Mandatory Power for Palestine, since the year 1921, to recognize to their full extent the rights acquired by M. Mavrommatis, a Greek subject,under contracts and agreements concluded by him with the Ottoman authorities, in regard to concessions for certain public works to be constructed in Palestine.
SOURCE: PCIJ Judgement #5 --- 26 March 1925.
​

In that part of the timeline, His Britannic Majesty's Government, in its capacity as Mandatory Power was the Government of Palestine, not only with the rights --- but also the obligations. The Treaty make no change to that determination; Article 16 applies.

The PCIJ recognizes the Mandatory as the successor to the rights, as well as obligations incurred, acting as the Government for Palestine. This is consistent with the Order in Council and the Mandate itself.

Most Respectfully,
R

The PCIJ recognizes the Mandatory as the successor to the rights, as well as obligations incurred, acting as the Government for Palestine.​

The Mandatory was a temporarily assigned administration of Palestine. Palestine existed separate from the Mandate.

(COMMENT)

There was no political subdivision (of the Ottoman Empire) called Palestine. Palestine, as a legal entity, was defined by the Order in Counsel, with boundaries as may be determined by the Allied Powers. Palestine is the short title for the "Territory to which the Mandate Applies."

Your suggestion that the character of the Mandate being temporary, had some impact on nationality and citizenship is not really a criteria for anything. The Allied Powers created the Treaty, and the Allied Powers were in a position to amend the Treaty as was necessary to achieve their objective. The treaty (Part I --- Section II --- Nationality) was sufficient for the needs of the Allied Powers and the British Mandatory's needs.

Palestine (the territory) DID NOT exist separate from the Mandate. Without the precession of authority documents drawn-up by the Allied Powers and the surveys establishing the boundaries, Palestine could NOT be a defined geographic region accepted to be in the jurisdiction of a particular governmental entity. That is why the Allied Powers established Palestine as a legal entity.

The sovereign power in 1918 transferred to the Allied Powers first to the EOTA -- then designating Great Britain as the Mandatory. In 1948, the British handed-off the control to the UN Palestine Commission as the Successor Government. There was never a designated successor (state or government) called Palestine.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco, you keep dancing around the most important issue. Palestine had to exist before the Mandate could commence. Palestine continued to exist after the Mandate left.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

No, I've answered your questions on this quite carefully.

(COMMENT)
The Territory of the former Ottoman Vilayets of Beirut and Damacus, and the Mutasarrifyet of Jerusalem came under the control of the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration (EOTA) (establishing effective control) until July 1920 when the Civil Administration assumed charge.
(COMMENT)
There was no political subdivision (of the Ottoman Empire) called Palestine. Palestine, as a legal entity, was defined by the Order in Counsel, with boundaries as may be determined by the Allied Powers. Palestine is the short title for the "Territory to which the Mandate Applies."

Rocco, you keep dancing around the most important issue. Palestine had to exist before the Mandate could commence. Palestine continued to exist after the Mandate left.

(COMMENT)

First time the Allied Forces engaged in hostile military operations in the Middle East was o/a (on or about) 29 October 1914 --- although actual combat operations did not began until January 1915; opposing the German led forces of the Ottoman Empire [Fourth Army (Syria)]). And o/a 30 October 1918, combat operations ceased once the Armistice of Mudros was concluded. During that period, the Allied Forces participated in five military campaigns:

• Sinai and Palestine Campaign,
• Mesopotamian Campaign,
• Caucasus Campaign,
• Persian Campaign,
• Gallipoli Campaign...
​

Just as we say, the Battle of the Ardennes (1914) was the second of the Battle of the Frontiers (WWI), where the Ardennes was not a separate political subdivision, everyone back then knew where it was. It was a name for the rough terrain and heavily forested region extending across parts of France, Belgium and Luxembourg; but with no set boundaries. So it was that Palestine, a regional name, described a region extending across the former Ottoman Vilayets of Beirut and Damacus, and the Mutasarrifyet of Jerusalem. It WAS NOT, as you imply, a separate political subdivision --- BUT A PART of several politically distinct subdivisions.

• Did the dirt and sand of Palestine exist before the Mandate Period? Yes it did.
• Did it have such boundaries or its own distinct government? No it did not.
​

It should be noted that Palestine is not the only regional area in the world that has the vague territorial description. Appalachia, in the Eastern United States, also "lacks definite physiographical or topographical boundaries; and there has been some disagreement over what exactly the region encompasses." However, just as there is not disagreement that Appalachia or The Ardennes, has no distinct government or separate nationality/citizenship, so it was with the pre-WWI Palestine.

Unless there is some catastrophic geological event that sucks-up Appalachia, The Ardennes, and Palestine, those names associated with those undefined regions, have been used for centuries --- and will continue to be used for centuries more. This neither adds anything of substance to the Argument (your argument), or credibility to the suggestion that the use of the word "Palestine" at the turn of the century in the years prior to the Great War, denotes anything politically relative to the territory.

Before WWI, Palestine was a region of the Middle East that encompassed land that extended over the former Ottoman Vilayets of Beirut and Damacus, and the Mutasarrifyet of Jerusalem. After the surrender of the Ottoman Empire, is was again land that fell under the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration of those same former Ottoman subdivisions. After the issue of Mandates and the establishment of civil administration, the Allied Powers formalized the boundaries.

(SUMMARY --- ONE MORE TIME)

So, in the sense that the 1914 territory of Palestine existed after the Mandates, is wrong --- completely wrong. Prior to the Mandates, Palestine was an undefined "Regional Name" and after the Mandates, Palestine became a legal entity under the administration of the Mandatory having defined territorial limits.

You should not attempt to word your questions such that the word "Palestine" implies one and only one ethnic, nationality, citizenship, or culture. Over the last century, all that has changed or was altered several times. The pre-War names for the former Ottoman Vilayets of Beirut, Aleppo, Damacus, and the Mutasarrifyet of Jerusalem were very different things back then, in comparison to today. Even the Name "Syria" meant something different back then, compared to what it means today. And if DAESH is able to establish their Caliphate --- it will again make changes.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

No, I've answered your questions on this quite carefully.

(COMMENT)
The Territory of the former Ottoman Vilayets of Beirut and Damacus, and the Mutasarrifyet of Jerusalem came under the control of the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration (EOTA) (establishing effective control) until July 1920 when the Civil Administration assumed charge.
(COMMENT)
There was no political subdivision (of the Ottoman Empire) called Palestine. Palestine, as a legal entity, was defined by the Order in Counsel, with boundaries as may be determined by the Allied Powers. Palestine is the short title for the "Territory to which the Mandate Applies."

Rocco, you keep dancing around the most important issue. Palestine had to exist before the Mandate could commence. Palestine continued to exist after the Mandate left.

(COMMENT)

First time the Allied Forces engaged in hostile military operations in the Middle East was o/a (on or about) 29 October 1914 --- although actual combat operations did not began until January 1915; opposing the German led forces of the Ottoman Empire [Fourth Army (Syria)]). And o/a 30 October 1918, combat operations ceased once the Armistice of Mudros was concluded. During that period, the Allied Forces participated in five military campaigns:

• Sinai and Palestine Campaign,
• Mesopotamian Campaign,
• Caucasus Campaign,
• Persian Campaign,
• Gallipoli Campaign...
​

Just as we say, the Battle of the Ardennes (1914) was the second of the Battle of the Frontiers (WWI), where the Ardennes was not a separate political subdivision, everyone back then knew where it was. It was a name for the rough terrain and heavily forested region extending across parts of France, Belgium and Luxembourg; but with no set boundaries. So it was that Palestine, a regional name, described a region extending across the former Ottoman Vilayets of Beirut and Damacus, and the Mutasarrifyet of Jerusalem. It WAS NOT, as you imply, a separate political subdivision --- BUT A PART of several politically distinct subdivisions.

• Did the dirt and sand of Palestine exist before the Mandate Period? Yes it did.
• Did it have such boundaries or its own distinct government? No it did not.
​

It should be noted that Palestine is not the only regional area in the world that has the vague territorial description. Appalachia, in the Eastern United States, also "lacks definite physiographical or topographical boundaries; and there has been some disagreement over what exactly the region encompasses." However, just as there is not disagreement that Appalachia or The Ardennes, has no distinct government or separate nationality/citizenship, so it was with the pre-WWI Palestine.

Unless there is some catastrophic geological event that sucks-up Appalachia, The Ardennes, and Palestine, those names associated with those undefined regions, have been used for centuries --- and will continue to be used for centuries more. This neither adds anything of substance to the Argument (your argument), or credibility to the suggestion that the use of the word "Palestine" at the turn of the century in the years prior to the Great War, denotes anything politically relative to the territory.

Before WWI, Palestine was a region of the Middle East that encompassed land that extended over the former Ottoman Vilayets of Beirut and Damacus, and the Mutasarrifyet of Jerusalem. After the surrender of the Ottoman Empire, is was again land that fell under the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration of those same former Ottoman subdivisions. After the issue of Mandates and the establishment of civil administration, the Allied Powers formalized the boundaries.

(SUMMARY --- ONE MORE TIME)

So, in the sense that the 1914 territory of Palestine existed after the Mandates, is wrong --- completely wrong. Prior to the Mandates, Palestine was an undefined "Regional Name" and after the Mandates, Palestine became a legal entity under the administration of the Mandatory having defined territorial limits.

You should not attempt to word your questions such that the word "Palestine" implies one and only one ethnic, nationality, citizenship, or culture. Over the last century, all that has changed or was altered several times. The pre-War names for the former Ottoman Vilayets of Beirut, Aleppo, Damacus, and the Mutasarrifyet of Jerusalem were very different things back then, in comparison to today. Even the Name "Syria" meant something different back then, compared to what it means today. And if DAESH is able to establish their Caliphate --- it will again make changes.

Most Respectfully,
R

Keep dancing, Rocco.

What part of that refutes my post?

 

[Boston1]

Your barking at the wind Rocco. I don't think Tinmore is able to follow the conversation.

You've spelled out your position quite well again and again and obviously the problem isn't on your end.

The facts are obvious. There is already one Arab state within the mandate area and now they want several more. Thats fine but Israel is under no obligation to give up any land. Let the 57 or so Arab states figure out where to put them. Not the 1 Jewish state.

 

[MJB12741]

Your barking at the wind Rocco. I don't think Tinmore is able to follow the conversation.

You've spelled out your position quite well again and again and obviously the problem isn't on your end.

The facts are obvious. There is already one Arab state within the mandate area and now they want several more. Thats fine but Israel is under no obligation to give up any land. Let the 57 or so Arab states figure out where to put them. Not the 1 Jewish state.

Right you are. But once again, there lies the problem that no Arab state want anything to do with Palestinians. How grateful they are that Israel now has to deal with them.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Your barking at the wind Rocco. I don't think Tinmore is able to follow the conversation.

You've spelled out your position quite well again and again and obviously the problem isn't on your end.

The facts are obvious. There is already one Arab state within the mandate area and now they want several more. Thats fine but Israel is under no obligation to give up any land. Let the 57 or so Arab states figure out where to put them. Not the 1 Jewish state.

To be really technical about it, there are 57 countries with the Muslim religion. 22 of those countries speak Arabic and belong to the Arab League. Jordan once was part of the Palestine Mandate. So the greedy Mohammedans (as they used to be called), want 58 or 59 Muslim states (depending on whether the West Bank and Gaza will be divided); 23 or 24 Arab states; and 2 or 3 Palestinian states. Obviously, the Muslims do not have enough land, resources or oil.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Your barking at the wind Rocco. I don't think Tinmore is able to follow the conversation.

You've spelled out your position quite well again and again and obviously the problem isn't on your end.

The facts are obvious. There is already one Arab state within the mandate area and now they want several more. Thats fine but Israel is under no obligation to give up any land. Let the 57 or so Arab states figure out where to put them. Not the 1 Jewish state.

Right you are. But once again, there lies the problem that no Arab state want anything to do with Palestinians. How grateful they are that Israel now has to deal with them.

Why is it their job to clean up after Israel.

 

[MJB12741]

Your barking at the wind Rocco. I don't think Tinmore is able to follow the conversation.

You've spelled out your position quite well again and again and obviously the problem isn't on your end.

The facts are obvious. There is already one Arab state within the mandate area and now they want several more. Thats fine but Israel is under no obligation to give up any land. Let the 57 or so Arab states figure out where to put them. Not the 1 Jewish state.

Right you are. But once again, there lies the problem that no Arab state want anything to do with Palestinians. How grateful they are that Israel now has to deal with them.

Why is it their job to clean up after Israel.

"Clean up after Israel"? Pali's never had it so good. Do you believe the Pali's would be better off leaving Israel to go back to living in some surrounding Arab country?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

That would be 100% wrong.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Britain took the responsibility for the EOTA and the Civil Administration well before the Mandate for Palestine was culminated.

P F Tinmore, et al,

You need to backup and look again.

1 November, 1922: Abolition of Mehmed VI and the Office of the Ottoman Sultan.
29 October, 1923: Independence of the Republic of Turkey.
3 March, 1924: Abdülmecid II and the Office of Ottoman Caliphate did not dissolve until 1924.
6 August 1924: Treaty of Lausanne effective date
SOURCE: CIA Fact Book 2016 Turkey
​

(COMMENT)

All of Syria was surrendered to the Allied Powers in 1918.

The last Ottoman Sultan was still Ruler until 1 November 1922 (not 1917). However, under Article 16, Mudros Armistice, all Ottoman forces surrendered.

Armistice of Mudros

"Armistice of Mudros, (Oct. 30, 1918), pact signed at the Port of Mudros, on the Aegean island of Lemnos, between the Ottoman Empire and Great Britain (representing the Allied powers) marking the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I (1914–18).

Under the terms of the armistice, the Ottomans surrendered their remaining garrisons in Hejaz, Yemen, Syria, Mesopotamia, Tripolitania, and Cyrenaica; the Allies were to occupy the Straits of the Dardanellesand the Bosporus, Batum (now in southwest Georgia), and the Taurus tunnel system; and the Allies won the right to occupy “in case of disorder” the six Armenian provinces in Anatolia and to seize “any strategic points” in case of a threat to Allied security. The Ottoman army was demobilized, and Turkish ports, railways, and other strategic points were made available for use by the Allies."
​

The Republic of Turkey did not declare Independence until the last quarter 1923. So there could be no Turkish Sovereignty over anything until FIRST there was a Turkey.

Whatever your point was, it could not be dependent on your statement: "From 1917 to the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne, Britain was the occupying power of a large are of land that was still under the sovereignty of the Turks."

The Territory of the former Ottoman Vilayets of Beirut and Damacus, and the Mutasarrifyet of Jerusalem came under the control of the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration (EOTA) (establishing effective control) until July 1920 when the Civil Administration assumed charge.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, but how does that change the premise of my post?

(COMMENT)

The Treaty of Lausanne (written by the Allied Powers) does not conflict with the:

• San Remo Agreement (Written by the Allied Powers)
• Palestine Order in Council (Written by the Allied Powers)
• Mandate for Palestine (Written by the Allied Powers)
​

The Allied Powers did not write conflicting document at cross-purposes to their intent. There is nothing special about the Treaty of Lausanne relative to the Mandatory Power issuing Nationality and Citizenship guidance for the Territory under the administration of the Mandate.

No, the Government of Palestine was to be determined by the Allied Powers. The future of Palestine (the territory to which the Mandate Applied) was to be determined by Allied Powers:

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.
​

It must be remembered that, nowhere in the Treaty of Lausanne, is the Government of Palestine (GoP) mentioned. The succession is blanket by Article 16.

Separately, the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) made note that:

• On May 20th, 1920, the Mandate for Palestine had been given to Great Britain and on July 1st the British Government replaced its military occupation of Palestine by a civil administration.
​

Further, the PICJ made the association (at the time of that Judgement) there was an association between the Government of Palestine and consequently also on the part of His Britannic Majesty's Government, in its capacity as Mandatory Power for Palestine.

The Government of the Greek Republic, by an application filed with the Registry of the Court on May 13th, 1924, in accordance with Article 40 of the Statute and Article 35 of the Rules of Court, has submitted to the Permanent Court of International Justice a suit arising out of the alleged refusal on the part of the
Government of Palestine and consequently also on the part of His Britannic Majesty's Government, in its capacity as Mandatory Power for Palestine, since the year 1921, to recognize to their full extent the rights acquired by M. Mavrommatis, a Greek subject,under contracts and agreements concluded by him with the Ottoman authorities, in regard to concessions for certain public works to be constructed in Palestine.
SOURCE: PCIJ Judgement #5 --- 26 March 1925.
​

In that part of the timeline, His Britannic Majesty's Government, in its capacity as Mandatory Power was the Government of Palestine, not only with the rights --- but also the obligations. The Treaty make no change to that determination; Article 16 applies.

The PCIJ recognizes the Mandatory as the successor to the rights, as well as obligations incurred, acting as the Government for Palestine. This is consistent with the Order in Council and the Mandate itself.

Most Respectfully,
R

The PCIJ recognizes the Mandatory as the successor to the rights, as well as obligations incurred, acting as the Government for Palestine.​

The Mandatory was a temporarily assigned administration of Palestine. Palestine existed separate from the Mandate.

(COMMENT)

There was no political subdivision (of the Ottoman Empire) called Palestine. Palestine, as a legal entity, was defined by the Order in Counsel, with boundaries as may be determined by the Allied Powers. Palestine is the short title for the "Territory to which the Mandate Applies."

Your suggestion that the character of the Mandate being temporary, had some impact on nationality and citizenship is not really a criteria for anything. The Allied Powers created the Treaty, and the Allied Powers were in a position to amend the Treaty as was necessary to achieve their objective. The treaty (Part I --- Section II --- Nationality) was sufficient for the needs of the Allied Powers and the British Mandatory's needs.

Palestine (the territory) DID NOT exist separate from the Mandate. Without the precession of authority documents drawn-up by the Allied Powers and the surveys establishing the boundaries, Palestine could NOT be a defined geographic region accepted to be in the jurisdiction of a particular governmental entity. That is why the Allied Powers established Palestine as a legal entity.

The sovereign power in 1918 transferred to the Allied Powers first to the EOTA -- then designating Great Britain as the Mandatory. In 1948, the British handed-off the control to the UN Palestine Commission as the Successor Government. There was never a designated successor (state or government) called Palestine.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco, you keep dancing around the most important issue. Palestine had to exist before the Mandate could commence. Palestine continued to exist after the Mandate left.

It is you dancing around the reality as it only had to exist as an undefined area on a map. The area was delineqated in part by the Roman empire sometime in 70 C.E.
The mandate never left but the mandatory power did, the legal aspects of the mandate of Palestine are still in existence as the land has not been fully claimed under the mandate terms


ONCE AGAIN YOU CONFUSE THE MANDATORY POWER WITH THE MANDATE OF PALESTINE. TWO SEPERATE AND COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ENTITIES

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

No, I've answered your questions on this quite carefully.

(COMMENT)
The Territory of the former Ottoman Vilayets of Beirut and Damacus, and the Mutasarrifyet of Jerusalem came under the control of the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration (EOTA) (establishing effective control) until July 1920 when the Civil Administration assumed charge.
(COMMENT)
There was no political subdivision (of the Ottoman Empire) called Palestine. Palestine, as a legal entity, was defined by the Order in Counsel, with boundaries as may be determined by the Allied Powers. Palestine is the short title for the "Territory to which the Mandate Applies."

Rocco, you keep dancing around the most important issue. Palestine had to exist before the Mandate could commence. Palestine continued to exist after the Mandate left.

(COMMENT)

First time the Allied Forces engaged in hostile military operations in the Middle East was o/a (on or about) 29 October 1914 --- although actual combat operations did not began until January 1915; opposing the German led forces of the Ottoman Empire [Fourth Army (Syria)]). And o/a 30 October 1918, combat operations ceased once the Armistice of Mudros was concluded. During that period, the Allied Forces participated in five military campaigns:

• Sinai and Palestine Campaign,
• Mesopotamian Campaign,
• Caucasus Campaign,
• Persian Campaign,
• Gallipoli Campaign...
​

Just as we say, the Battle of the Ardennes (1914) was the second of the Battle of the Frontiers (WWI), where the Ardennes was not a separate political subdivision, everyone back then knew where it was. It was a name for the rough terrain and heavily forested region extending across parts of France, Belgium and Luxembourg; but with no set boundaries. So it was that Palestine, a regional name, described a region extending across the former Ottoman Vilayets of Beirut and Damacus, and the Mutasarrifyet of Jerusalem. It WAS NOT, as you imply, a separate political subdivision --- BUT A PART of several politically distinct subdivisions.

• Did the dirt and sand of Palestine exist before the Mandate Period? Yes it did.
• Did it have such boundaries or its own distinct government? No it did not.
​

It should be noted that Palestine is not the only regional area in the world that has the vague territorial description. Appalachia, in the Eastern United States, also "lacks definite physiographical or topographical boundaries; and there has been some disagreement over what exactly the region encompasses." However, just as there is not disagreement that Appalachia or The Ardennes, has no distinct government or separate nationality/citizenship, so it was with the pre-WWI Palestine.

Unless there is some catastrophic geological event that sucks-up Appalachia, The Ardennes, and Palestine, those names associated with those undefined regions, have been used for centuries --- and will continue to be used for centuries more. This neither adds anything of substance to the Argument (your argument), or credibility to the suggestion that the use of the word "Palestine" at the turn of the century in the years prior to the Great War, denotes anything politically relative to the territory.

Before WWI, Palestine was a region of the Middle East that encompassed land that extended over the former Ottoman Vilayets of Beirut and Damacus, and the Mutasarrifyet of Jerusalem. After the surrender of the Ottoman Empire, is was again land that fell under the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration of those same former Ottoman subdivisions. After the issue of Mandates and the establishment of civil administration, the Allied Powers formalized the boundaries.

(SUMMARY --- ONE MORE TIME)

So, in the sense that the 1914 territory of Palestine existed after the Mandates, is wrong --- completely wrong. Prior to the Mandates, Palestine was an undefined "Regional Name" and after the Mandates, Palestine became a legal entity under the administration of the Mandatory having defined territorial limits.

You should not attempt to word your questions such that the word "Palestine" implies one and only one ethnic, nationality, citizenship, or culture. Over the last century, all that has changed or was altered several times. The pre-War names for the former Ottoman Vilayets of Beirut, Aleppo, Damacus, and the Mutasarrifyet of Jerusalem were very different things back then, in comparison to today. Even the Name "Syria" meant something different back then, compared to what it means today. And if DAESH is able to establish their Caliphate --- it will again make changes.

Most Respectfully,
R

Keep dancing, Rocco.

What part of that refutes my post?

All of it as Palestine the nation did not exist until 1988, and then in name only. Before that it was a name given to an area like the Bermuda Triangle, Death Valley, Badlands, Pampas and the Russian Steppes.

 

[Phoenall]

Your barking at the wind Rocco. I don't think Tinmore is able to follow the conversation.

You've spelled out your position quite well again and again and obviously the problem isn't on your end.

The facts are obvious. There is already one Arab state within the mandate area and now they want several more. Thats fine but Israel is under no obligation to give up any land. Let the 57 or so Arab states figure out where to put them. Not the 1 Jewish state.

Right you are. But once again, there lies the problem that no Arab state want anything to do with Palestinians. How grateful they are that Israel now has to deal with them.

Why is it their job to clean up after Israel.

It isn't, but it is their job to clean up the mess that have started in the M.E. with their invasions of Israel over the years.

Maybe the UN should institute a system of fines on any nation that declares war on another, once the war is over the fimnes are collected and then the invaders ran of the land

 

[MJB12741]

Your barking at the wind Rocco. I don't think Tinmore is able to follow the conversation.

You've spelled out your position quite well again and again and obviously the problem isn't on your end.

The facts are obvious. There is already one Arab state within the mandate area and now they want several more. Thats fine but Israel is under no obligation to give up any land. Let the 57 or so Arab states figure out where to put them. Not the 1 Jewish state.

Right you are. But once again, there lies the problem that no Arab state want anything to do with Palestinians. How grateful they are that Israel now has to deal with them.

Why is it their job to clean up after Israel.

It isn't, but it is their job to clean up the mess that have started in the M.E. with their invasions of Israel over the years.

Maybe the UN should institute a system of fines on any nation that declares war on another, once the war is over the fimnes are collected and then the invaders ran of the land

Pali squatters should not have any rights on the land.

 

[Boston1]

Exactly MJ

The reality is exactly the opposite as what the Arab Muslims would have us believe. Its the Arabs who are occupying Israeli land.

Everything west of the Jordan is or was that is made available for the creation of a national Jewish Homeland

After the 48 war it was Jordan in the disputed territories who were occupying Israeli land and Egypt in Gaza who was occupying Israeli land.

After the 67 war it was still Arab Muslims allied with Jordan who were occupying Israeli land in the disputed territories. and Arab Muslims allied with Egypt occupying Israeli land in Gaza.

I call for an end to the occupation and the removal of all hostiles from Israeli areas of influence

 

[MJB12741]

Exactly MJ

The reality is exactly the opposite as what the Arab Muslims would have us believe. Its the Arabs who are occupying Israeli land.

Everything west of the Jordan is or was that is made available for the creation of a national Jewish Homeland

After the 48 war it was Jordan in the disputed territories who were occupying Israeli land and Egypt in Gaza who was occupying Israeli land.

After the 67 war it was still Arab Muslims allied with Jordan who were occupying Israeli land in the disputed territories. and Arab Muslims allied with Egypt occupying Israeli land in Gaza.

I call for an end to the occupation and the removal of all hostiles from Israeli areas of influence

I'm still trying to figure out how the Pali's & their supporters claim "Israel is stealing, or occupying 'Palestinian' land" when the Jews were native Palestinians for thousands of years before Islam.