Definitions within the Israeli palestine issue

[Boston1]

In an effort to clarify certain elements of language within the discussion and not distract from other conversations I though we'd start a new thread.

We'll start with

The disputed territories
This term is understood to be a polite way to acknowledge that there are two sides to the argument. It in no way is intended to recognize either sides claims other than to recognize that the two sides disagree.

;--)

 

[P F Tinmore]

Define the dispute.

 

[Boston1]

If you are able to post the question you are able to look up the definition of dispute for yourself. Or are you going to ask for the definition of the word yourself next ?

 

[P F Tinmore]

If you are able to post the question you are able to look up the definition of dispute for yourself. Or are you going to ask for the definition of the word yourself next ?

I understand the term. You need to define your application.

 

[Boston1]

The context was extremely clear

Does international law require Israel to vacate the disputed territories

Now what territories did you think I was talking about ? Something in kashmir maybe ? ;--)

 

[P F Tinmore]

The context was extremely clear

Does international law require Israel to vacate the disputed territories

Now what territories did you think I was talking about ? Something in kashmir maybe ? ;--)

What is the dispute? Whose dispute is it?

 

[Boston1]

at which point we need to define who who is ;--)

What you might term the palestinians are in fact a manufactured people. Their is no recognition of the term in history that grants the Arab Muslim colonists of this area special nationality or individual cultural recognition.

So it would appear that the correct use of language dictates that we drop the term palestinian from our language concerning this issue and instead include the term Arab Muslim colonists. Some of which MAY have SOME connection with various first nations peoples that lived in the surrounding area. However the first nations peoples who lived IN THE AREA are known today as the Judaic people.

So the dispute is between, as if we all didn't already know this, the first nation people, the Judaic people and the Arab Muslim colonists.

 

[P F Tinmore]

at which point we need to define who who is ;--)

What you might term the palestinians are in fact a manufactured people. Their is no recognition of the term in history that grants the Arab Muslim colonists of this area special nationality or individual cultural recognition.

So it would appear that the correct use of language dictates that we drop the term palestinian from our language concerning this issue and instead include the term Arab Muslim colonists. Some of which MAY have SOME connection with various first nations peoples that lived in the surrounding area. However the first nations peoples who lived IN THE AREA are known today as the Judaic people.

So the dispute is between, as if we all didn't already know this, the first nation people, the Judaic people and the Arab Muslim colonists.

Not true.

In international law, when a state is dissolved and new states are established, “the population follows the change of sovereignty in matters of nationality.”5 As a rule, therefore, citizens of the former state should automatically acquire the nationality of the successor state in which they had already been residing.

Nationality constitutes a legal bond that connects individuals with a specific territory, making them citizens of that territory.

The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the perspective of public international law. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British government pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine.”123 And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality.”124

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel​

 

[Boston1]

LOL.

You forgot the condition of war, which changes what rules of international law are applied.

You also forgot that the nationality order of the mandate period expired at the end of the mandate period.

You missed the part about the citizenship order not actually applying to the Arab Muslim colonists

You missed the fact that mandate palestine wasn't a state.

You missed the fact that mandate palestine had already at this time been divided into an Arab state and the only thing that remained was to decide what if not all of the remaining area would be needed to accommodate what would become Israel.

There's so many holes in your argument its just silly.

 

[P F Tinmore]

LOL.

You forgot the condition of war, which changes what rules of international law are applied.

You also forgot that the nationality order of the mandate period expired at the end of the mandate period.

You missed the part about the citizenship order not actually applying to the Arab Muslim colonists

You missed the fact that mandate palestine wasn't a state.

You missed the fact that mandate palestine had already at this time been divided into an Arab state and the only thing that remained was to decide what if not all of the remaining area would be needed to accommodate what would become Israel.

There's so many holes in your argument its just silly.

The Mandate did not determine Palestine's nationality. It was already Palestine before the Mandate could take effect.

 

[Boston1]

Actually not. It was a protectorate like the other protectorates in the area. Designed to assist in the creation of independent states. Those states had yet to be created ;--) Without a nation, one cannot have a nationality

You might study up on the history of this region before posting much more.

Your previous argument about citizenship laws also fails to recognize that the treaties and resolutions that define that citizenship were never enacted due to there being no final approval . IE the resolution was rejected by the Arab Muslim colonists who started a war, and lost, which altered the landscape sufficiently to require that other considerations be considered.

Quote

Despite the ratification of Lausanne in September 1924, internal differences of opinion within the British government continued to have an impact on the status of Palestinians. The Foreign Office wrote to the Home Office that Palestine did ‘not bear the slightest resemblances to an independent state’ and its citizens had no such status as belonging to one in international law. The status of the mandate as a British trusteeship rather than an outright colony or protectorate had little precedence.

The Palestinians argued that the order was unlawful because it was not enacted by a parliament elected by the people. Indeed, the Palestinians were never allowed to see any drafts of the order. If the Palestinians accepted the legitimacy of the enactment ‘of this controversial law,’ the order remained illegal and benefited what was then still only a small minority of Jewish immigrants. Bandak concluded that many world governments enacted strong barriers to the facilitation of nationality of foreigners who sought the same livelihoods as their own native populations. In Palestine, the establishment of a Jewish national home, strengthened by the nationality order, would annihilate Arab national control of the country’s facilities, take land from Arab hands and deplete Arab financial wealth. This condition would continue despite the existence of a nationality law, Bandak argued.

End quote

 

[P F Tinmore]

Actually not. It was a protectorate like the other protectorates in the area. Designed to assist in the creation of independent states. Those states had yet to be created ;--)

You might study up on the history of this region before posting much more.

Your previous argument about citizenship laws also fails to recognize that the treaties and resolutions that define that citizenship were never enacted due to there being no final approval . IE the resolution was rejected by the Arab Muslim colonists who started a war, and lost, which altered the landscape sufficiently to require that other considerations be considered.

Quote

The actual specifics of who these ‘citizens’ were came in further clauses of the draft mandate. The drafters of the mandate stated that all Ottoman subjects of Palestine would become Palestinian citizens at the date of the ratification of the peace treaty and thereby lose their Ottoman nationality unless an individual notified the government within twelve months of his desire to keep Ottoman nationality and leave Palestine. Clause Twelve of the draft further specified that Ottoman subjects who usually reside in Palestine and who were absent on the date of ratification of the peace treaty would become citizens if they returned to Palestine within twelve months and took up permanent residence. Meanwhile after ratification, Jewish immigrants who took up residence in Palestine would become Palestinian citizens after two years. The ratified mandate and the draft stipulated that the government must enact an official nationality law for the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship for Jews within two years after the final approval of the mandate.

End quote

Of course you realize that a state is the product of the exercise of rights not a prerequisite. Preventing people from exercising their rights is a violation of law.

 

[Penelope]

at which point we need to define who who is ;--)

What you might term the palestinians are in fact a manufactured people. Their is no recognition of the term in history that grants the Arab Muslim colonists of this area special nationality or individual cultural recognition.

So it would appear that the correct use of language dictates that we drop the term palestinian from our language concerning this issue and instead include the term Arab Muslim colonists. Some of which MAY have SOME connection with various first nations peoples that lived in the surrounding area. However the first nations peoples who lived IN THE AREA are known today as the Judaic people.

So the dispute is between, as if we all didn't already know this, the first nation people, the Judaic people and the Arab Muslim colonists.

Gee they would have to rewrite all the wiki articles, the jewish virtual library , history books along with many books are newspapers would be in . They are Palestinians, just like one is a Saudie, Iranian, or American, etc.

 

[Boston1]

Actually not. It was a protectorate like the other protectorates in the area. Designed to assist in the creation of independent states. Those states had yet to be created ;--)

You might study up on the history of this region before posting much more.

Your previous argument about citizenship laws also fails to recognize that the treaties and resolutions that define that citizenship were never enacted due to there being no final approval . IE the resolution was rejected by the Arab Muslim colonists who started a war, and lost, which altered the landscape sufficiently to require that other considerations be considered.

Quote

The actual specifics of who these ‘citizens’ were came in further clauses of the draft mandate. The drafters of the mandate stated that all Ottoman subjects of Palestine would become Palestinian citizens at the date of the ratification of the peace treaty and thereby lose their Ottoman nationality unless an individual notified the government within twelve months of his desire to keep Ottoman nationality and leave Palestine. Clause Twelve of the draft further specified that Ottoman subjects who usually reside in Palestine and who were absent on the date of ratification of the peace treaty would become citizens if they returned to Palestine within twelve months and took up permanent residence. Meanwhile after ratification, Jewish immigrants who took up residence in Palestine would become Palestinian citizens after two years. The ratified mandate and the draft stipulated that the government must enact an official nationality law for the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship for Jews within two years after the final approval of the mandate.

End quote

Of course you realize that a state is the product of the exercise of rights not a prerequisite. Preventing people from exercising their rights is a violation of law.

All this worming and squirming is exactly what I didn't want to distract from the previous thread and started this one. Which you promptly distract from again ;--)

But just to humor you, once again you forgot that a state of war alters the conditions under which both combatants and non combatants are expected to proceed

Are their any definitions you'd like to add to our thread ?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Actually not. It was a protectorate like the other protectorates in the area. Designed to assist in the creation of independent states. Those states had yet to be created ;--)

You might study up on the history of this region before posting much more.

Your previous argument about citizenship laws also fails to recognize that the treaties and resolutions that define that citizenship were never enacted due to there being no final approval . IE the resolution was rejected by the Arab Muslim colonists who started a war, and lost, which altered the landscape sufficiently to require that other considerations be considered.

Quote

The actual specifics of who these ‘citizens’ were came in further clauses of the draft mandate. The drafters of the mandate stated that all Ottoman subjects of Palestine would become Palestinian citizens at the date of the ratification of the peace treaty and thereby lose their Ottoman nationality unless an individual notified the government within twelve months of his desire to keep Ottoman nationality and leave Palestine. Clause Twelve of the draft further specified that Ottoman subjects who usually reside in Palestine and who were absent on the date of ratification of the peace treaty would become citizens if they returned to Palestine within twelve months and took up permanent residence. Meanwhile after ratification, Jewish immigrants who took up residence in Palestine would become Palestinian citizens after two years. The ratified mandate and the draft stipulated that the government must enact an official nationality law for the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship for Jews within two years after the final approval of the mandate.

End quote

Of course you realize that a state is the product of the exercise of rights not a prerequisite. Preventing people from exercising their rights is a violation of law.

All this worming and squirming is exactly what I didn't want to distract from the previous thread and started this one. Which you promptly distract from again ;--)

But just to humor you, once again you forgot that a state of war alters the conditions under which both combatants and non combatants are expected to proceed

Are their any definitions you'd like to add to our thread ?

It is illegal to acquire land by war.

What else do you need to know?

 

[Boston1]

at which point we need to define who who is ;--)

What you might term the palestinians are in fact a manufactured people. Their is no recognition of the term in history that grants the Arab Muslim colonists of this area special nationality or individual cultural recognition.

So it would appear that the correct use of language dictates that we drop the term palestinian from our language concerning this issue and instead include the term Arab Muslim colonists. Some of which MAY have SOME connection with various first nations peoples that lived in the surrounding area. However the first nations peoples who lived IN THE AREA are known today as the Judaic people.

So the dispute is between, as if we all didn't already know this, the first nation people, the Judaic people and the Arab Muslim colonists.

Gee they would have to rewrite all the wiki articles, the jewish virtual library , history books along with many books are newspapers would be in . They are Palestinians, just like one is a Saudie, Iranian, or American, etc.

Now we're talking.

The term palestine is a political convenience at this point. Its not intended to accurately describe a nationality as there is no nation. There is no distinct culture that might be defined as palestinian and there are no historical records which might define a palestinian first nation.

 

[Boston1]

Actually not. It was a protectorate like the other protectorates in the area. Designed to assist in the creation of independent states. Those states had yet to be created ;--)

You might study up on the history of this region before posting much more.

Your previous argument about citizenship laws also fails to recognize that the treaties and resolutions that define that citizenship were never enacted due to there being no final approval . IE the resolution was rejected by the Arab Muslim colonists who started a war, and lost, which altered the landscape sufficiently to require that other considerations be considered.

Quote

The actual specifics of who these ‘citizens’ were came in further clauses of the draft mandate. The drafters of the mandate stated that all Ottoman subjects of Palestine would become Palestinian citizens at the date of the ratification of the peace treaty and thereby lose their Ottoman nationality unless an individual notified the government within twelve months of his desire to keep Ottoman nationality and leave Palestine. Clause Twelve of the draft further specified that Ottoman subjects who usually reside in Palestine and who were absent on the date of ratification of the peace treaty would become citizens if they returned to Palestine within twelve months and took up permanent residence. Meanwhile after ratification, Jewish immigrants who took up residence in Palestine would become Palestinian citizens after two years. The ratified mandate and the draft stipulated that the government must enact an official nationality law for the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship for Jews within two years after the final approval of the mandate.

End quote

Of course you realize that a state is the product of the exercise of rights not a prerequisite. Preventing people from exercising their rights is a violation of law.

All this worming and squirming is exactly what I didn't want to distract from the previous thread and started this one. Which you promptly distract from again ;--)

But just to humor you, once again you forgot that a state of war alters the conditions under which both combatants and non combatants are expected to proceed

Are their any definitions you'd like to add to our thread ?

It is illegal to acquire land by war.

What else do you need to know?

And there you go again.

The subject is definitions

If you would like to start a thread concerning that issue I'd recommend you do so rather than distract from this one ;--)

 

[P F Tinmore]

at which point we need to define who who is ;--)

What you might term the palestinians are in fact a manufactured people. Their is no recognition of the term in history that grants the Arab Muslim colonists of this area special nationality or individual cultural recognition.

So it would appear that the correct use of language dictates that we drop the term palestinian from our language concerning this issue and instead include the term Arab Muslim colonists. Some of which MAY have SOME connection with various first nations peoples that lived in the surrounding area. However the first nations peoples who lived IN THE AREA are known today as the Judaic people.

So the dispute is between, as if we all didn't already know this, the first nation people, the Judaic people and the Arab Muslim colonists.

Gee they would have to rewrite all the wiki articles, the jewish virtual library , history books along with many books are newspapers would be in . They are Palestinians, just like one is a Saudie, Iranian, or American, etc.

Now we're talking.

The term palestine is a political convenience at this point. Its not intended to accurately describe a nationality as there is no nation. There is no distinct culture that might be defined as palestinian and there are no historical records which might define a palestinian first nation.

All you have to do now is sell that crap to millions of Palestinians.

Good luck with that.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Actually not. It was a protectorate like the other protectorates in the area. Designed to assist in the creation of independent states. Those states had yet to be created ;--)

You might study up on the history of this region before posting much more.

Your previous argument about citizenship laws also fails to recognize that the treaties and resolutions that define that citizenship were never enacted due to there being no final approval . IE the resolution was rejected by the Arab Muslim colonists who started a war, and lost, which altered the landscape sufficiently to require that other considerations be considered.

Quote

The actual specifics of who these ‘citizens’ were came in further clauses of the draft mandate. The drafters of the mandate stated that all Ottoman subjects of Palestine would become Palestinian citizens at the date of the ratification of the peace treaty and thereby lose their Ottoman nationality unless an individual notified the government within twelve months of his desire to keep Ottoman nationality and leave Palestine. Clause Twelve of the draft further specified that Ottoman subjects who usually reside in Palestine and who were absent on the date of ratification of the peace treaty would become citizens if they returned to Palestine within twelve months and took up permanent residence. Meanwhile after ratification, Jewish immigrants who took up residence in Palestine would become Palestinian citizens after two years. The ratified mandate and the draft stipulated that the government must enact an official nationality law for the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship for Jews within two years after the final approval of the mandate.

End quote

Of course you realize that a state is the product of the exercise of rights not a prerequisite. Preventing people from exercising their rights is a violation of law.

All this worming and squirming is exactly what I didn't want to distract from the previous thread and started this one. Which you promptly distract from again ;--)

But just to humor you, once again you forgot that a state of war alters the conditions under which both combatants and non combatants are expected to proceed

Are their any definitions you'd like to add to our thread ?

It is illegal to acquire land by war.

What else do you need to know?

And there you go again.

The subject is definitions

If you would like to start a thread concerning that issue I'd recommend you do so rather than distract from this one ;--)

You are the one who mentioned war.

 

[Kondor3]

LOL.

You forgot the condition of war, which changes what rules of international law are applied.

You also forgot that the nationality order of the mandate period expired at the end of the mandate period.

You missed the part about the citizenship order not actually applying to the Arab Muslim colonists

You missed the fact that mandate palestine wasn't a state.

You missed the fact that mandate palestine had already at this time been divided into an Arab state and the only thing that remained was to decide what if not all of the remaining area would be needed to accommodate what would become Israel.

There's so many holes in your argument its just silly.

The Mandate did not determine Palestine's nationality. It was already Palestine before the Mandate could take effect.

Palestine has never been a nation nor a distinct culture nor nationality, merely a regional appellation on the maps of its diverse conquerors and masters.