Did Israel Evict The Palestinians?

[Joe Bruno]

Did Israel Evict The Palestinians? Arab sources say NO

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.revisionism/msg/e59f7fc2284914da

Jews have lived on that land for thousands of years

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_ancient_Israel_and_Judah


Jews bought much of the land in Palestine

Jewish land purchase in Palestine - Wikipedia

 

[Mindful]

Not to forget the infamous Black September:

Jordan: We Do Not Want Palestinians

 

[DGS49]

Obviously, there was a major migration of jews to that part of the world as part of the Zionist movement. So the ones in question are not the same ones who had lived there for a hundred generations, but rather the more recent arrivals. Their purchase of land in "Palestine" was somewhat compromised by the lack of formal deeds and related documentation LOCALLY. Many people (Arabs) who had lived on, and farmed land for "generations" found that "their" land had been sold out from under them, giving them no opportunity to contest the transactions.

There never was a country called "Palestine," nor an ethnicity/nationality called the "Palestinians." That nomenclature - with Roman origins - arose when it became apparent that the jews wanted to claim the area for a newly-formed country of Israel. The indigenous non-jews simply needed a name by which to refer to themselves.

The real problem arose because the jews insisted that the new country be overtly established as a "jewish state." It is ironic that the Arabs had (and continue to have) such a problem with this concept because there are scores of countries in the Middle East and around the world that are overtly "Islamic" states. And ONE jewish state is a problem? And of course, there is nothing prohibiting Arab/Muslims from being a citizens of Israel, or practicing their religion.

There is some disagreement about whether the jews evicted the local Arabs when the State of Israel was declared, or they left voluntarily on the advice of the surrounding Arab states. Regardless, it has been more than 70 years since the fact, and continuing to refer to those who left as "refugees" is preposterous. They need to get a life.

Interestingly, the U.S. has never had a problem with the concept of people coming in from the outside and establishing a new "country" in spite of protests from the locals, because that's pretty much how the U.S. was created.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Jews could not have evicted Palestinians because they did not exist. There were just Arabs with no particular identity other than that. It was only by Arafat's urging that they started calling themselves "Palestinian", a simple ploy to create the illusion of land ownership as well as inverse the relationship between powerful majority and small minority.

As far as "eviction" is concerned, once Arabs attacked Jews upon the creation of Israel, the most hostile Arabs left and the most peaceful stayed. The hostile were generally aligned with the Nazi Mufti al Husseini (uncle to the Egyptian who changed his name later to Arafat) while the more peaceful were generally aligned with the Nashashibi clan.

As to the hostile Arabs who left, some left voluntarily while others had to be met with harsher measures because they had started a war. In total, around 700000 Arabs left, some by their own choosing with those who chose warfare by force. Several years later around 900000 Jews were evicted from Arab lands, most of them moving to Israel after Arabs in neighboring countries seized everything they owned.

Only an antisemite would harp on the so-called "Palestinian:" (Arab) refugees while failing to note the Jewish, especially considering that the Arabs who left were engaging in warfare and the Jews who were forced out of Arab lands weren't.

 

[Joe Bruno]

Obviously, there was a major migration of jews to that part of the world as part of the Zionist movement. So the ones in question are not the same ones who had lived there for a hundred generations, but rather the more recent arrivals.

The Arab claims were exactly the same.

Their purchase of land in "Palestine" was somewhat compromised by the lack of formal deeds and related documentation LOCALLY. Many people (Arabs) who had lived on, and farmed land for "generations" found that "their" land had been sold out from under them, giving them no opportunity to contest the transactions.

EVIDENCE???????????????????????????

There never was a country called "Palestine," nor an ethnicity/nationality called the "Palestinians." That nomenclature - with Roman origins - arose when it became apparent that the jews wanted to claim the area for a newly-formed country of Israel. The indigenous non-jews simply needed a name by which to refer to themselves.

The real problem arose because the jews insisted that the new country be overtly established as a "jewish state."

WRONG. The United Nations partitioned the land in 1947 into Arab and Jewish sectors. The Jews accepted the plan and the Arabs did not. The Jews only labelled their allotted portion as "Israel."

 

[Joe Bruno]

Obviously, there was a major migration of jews to that part of the world as part of the Zionist movement. So the ones in question are not the same ones who had lived there for a hundred generations, but rather the more recent arrivals. Their purchase of land in "Palestine" was somewhat compromised by the lack of formal deeds and related documentation LOCALLY. Many people (Arabs) who had lived on, and farmed land for "generations" found that "their" land had been sold out from under them, giving them no opportunity to contest the transactions.

There never was a country called "Palestine," nor an ethnicity/nationality called the "Palestinians." That nomenclature - with Roman origins - arose when it became apparent that the jews wanted to claim the area for a newly-formed country of Israel. The indigenous non-jews simply needed a name by which to refer to themselves.

The real problem arose because the jews insisted that the new country be overtly established as a "jewish state." It is ironic that the Arabs had (and continue to have) such a problem with this concept because there are scores of countries in the Middle East and around the world that are overtly "Islamic" states. And ONE jewish state is a problem? And of course, there is nothing prohibiting Arab/Muslims from being a citizens of Israel, or practicing their religion.

There is some disagreement about whether the jews evicted the local Arabs when the State of Israel was declared, or they left voluntarily on the advice of the surrounding Arab states. Regardless, it has been more than 70 years since the fact, and continuing to refer to those who left as "refugees" is preposterous. They need to get a life.

Interestingly, the U.S. has never had a problem with the concept of people coming in from the outside and establishing a new "country" in spite of protests from the locals, because that's pretty much how the U.S. was created.

Many people (Arabs) who had lived on, and farmed land for "generations" found that "their" land had been sold out from under them, giving them no opportunity to contest the transactions.

EVIDENCE??????

 

[Joe Bruno]

So the ones in question are not the same ones who had lived there for a hundred generations, but rather the more recent arrivals.

The Arab claims were the same.

 

[Joe Bruno]

So the ones in question are not the same ones who had lived there for a hundred generations, but rather the more recent arrivals.

The Arab claims were the same.

The real problem arose because the jews insisted that the new country be overtly established as a "jewish state."

WRONG. UN Resolution 181 partitioned the land into Arab and Jewish sectors and the Jews only took the part given them.

 

[Mindful]

And the British reneged.

The State of Israel

 

[Shusha]

Its complicated. Why are you asking?

 

[P F Tinmore]

So the ones in question are not the same ones who had lived there for a hundred generations, but rather the more recent arrivals.

The Arab claims were the same.

The real problem arose because the jews insisted that the new country be overtly established as a "jewish state."

WRONG. UN Resolution 181 partitioned the land into Arab and Jewish sectors and the Jews only took the part given them.

Not true. Resolution 181 was a non binding recommendation that was rejected and abandoned by the UN. The resolution was not implemented by the Security Council as required.

 

[Hollie]

So the ones in question are not the same ones who had lived there for a hundred generations, but rather the more recent arrivals.

The Arab claims were the same.

The real problem arose because the jews insisted that the new country be overtly established as a "jewish state."

WRONG. UN Resolution 181 partitioned the land into Arab and Jewish sectors and the Jews only took the part given them.

Not true. Resolution 181 was a non binding recommendation that was rejected and abandoned by the UN. The resolution was not implemented by the Security Council as required.

The the answer is no, Israel did not evict any “Palestinians”.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Obviously, there was a major migration of jews to that part of the world as part of the Zionist movement. So the ones in question are not the same ones who had lived there for a hundred generations, but rather the more recent arrivals. Their purchase of land in "Palestine" was somewhat compromised by the lack of formal deeds and related documentation LOCALLY. Many people (Arabs) who had lived on, and farmed land for "generations" found that "their" land had been sold out from under them, giving them no opportunity to contest the transactions.

There never was a country called "Palestine," nor an ethnicity/nationality called the "Palestinians." That nomenclature - with Roman origins - arose when it became apparent that the jews wanted to claim the area for a newly-formed country of Israel. The indigenous non-jews simply needed a name by which to refer to themselves.

The real problem arose because the jews insisted that the new country be overtly established as a "jewish state." It is ironic that the Arabs had (and continue to have) such a problem with this concept because there are scores of countries in the Middle East and around the world that are overtly "Islamic" states. And ONE jewish state is a problem? And of course, there is nothing prohibiting Arab/Muslims from being a citizens of Israel, or practicing their religion.

There is some disagreement about whether the jews evicted the local Arabs when the State of Israel was declared, or they left voluntarily on the advice of the surrounding Arab states. Regardless, it has been more than 70 years since the fact, and continuing to refer to those who left as "refugees" is preposterous. They need to get a life.

Interestingly, the U.S. has never had a problem with the concept of people coming in from the outside and establishing a new "country" in spite of protests from the locals, because that's pretty much how the U.S. was created.

There never was a country called "Palestine," nor an ethnicity/nationality called the "Palestinians." That nomenclature - with Roman origins - arose when it became apparent that the jews wanted to claim the area for a newly-formed country of Israel. The indigenous non-jews simply needed a name by which to refer to themselves.

Israeli horseshit, of course.
-------------------
Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​

-------------------
The automatic, ipso facto, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel

 

[Hollie]

Obviously, there was a major migration of jews to that part of the world as part of the Zionist movement. So the ones in question are not the same ones who had lived there for a hundred generations, but rather the more recent arrivals. Their purchase of land in "Palestine" was somewhat compromised by the lack of formal deeds and related documentation LOCALLY. Many people (Arabs) who had lived on, and farmed land for "generations" found that "their" land had been sold out from under them, giving them no opportunity to contest the transactions.

There never was a country called "Palestine," nor an ethnicity/nationality called the "Palestinians." That nomenclature - with Roman origins - arose when it became apparent that the jews wanted to claim the area for a newly-formed country of Israel. The indigenous non-jews simply needed a name by which to refer to themselves.

The real problem arose because the jews insisted that the new country be overtly established as a "jewish state." It is ironic that the Arabs had (and continue to have) such a problem with this concept because there are scores of countries in the Middle East and around the world that are overtly "Islamic" states. And ONE jewish state is a problem? And of course, there is nothing prohibiting Arab/Muslims from being a citizens of Israel, or practicing their religion.

There is some disagreement about whether the jews evicted the local Arabs when the State of Israel was declared, or they left voluntarily on the advice of the surrounding Arab states. Regardless, it has been more than 70 years since the fact, and continuing to refer to those who left as "refugees" is preposterous. They need to get a life.

Interestingly, the U.S. has never had a problem with the concept of people coming in from the outside and establishing a new "country" in spite of protests from the locals, because that's pretty much how the U.S. was created.

There never was a country called "Palestine," nor an ethnicity/nationality called the "Palestinians." That nomenclature - with Roman origins - arose when it became apparent that the jews wanted to claim the area for a newly-formed country of Israel. The indigenous non-jews simply needed a name by which to refer to themselves.

Israeli horseshit, of course.
-------------------
Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​

-------------------
The automatic, ipso facto, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel

The above is a fraud you have attempted to commit on many occasions.

Nothing in the Treaty of Lausanne created your imagined “country of Pal’istan”, the place “Where Dreams Come True”

 

[P F Tinmore]

Obviously, there was a major migration of jews to that part of the world as part of the Zionist movement. So the ones in question are not the same ones who had lived there for a hundred generations, but rather the more recent arrivals. Their purchase of land in "Palestine" was somewhat compromised by the lack of formal deeds and related documentation LOCALLY. Many people (Arabs) who had lived on, and farmed land for "generations" found that "their" land had been sold out from under them, giving them no opportunity to contest the transactions.

There never was a country called "Palestine," nor an ethnicity/nationality called the "Palestinians." That nomenclature - with Roman origins - arose when it became apparent that the jews wanted to claim the area for a newly-formed country of Israel. The indigenous non-jews simply needed a name by which to refer to themselves.

The real problem arose because the jews insisted that the new country be overtly established as a "jewish state." It is ironic that the Arabs had (and continue to have) such a problem with this concept because there are scores of countries in the Middle East and around the world that are overtly "Islamic" states. And ONE jewish state is a problem? And of course, there is nothing prohibiting Arab/Muslims from being a citizens of Israel, or practicing their religion.

There is some disagreement about whether the jews evicted the local Arabs when the State of Israel was declared, or they left voluntarily on the advice of the surrounding Arab states. Regardless, it has been more than 70 years since the fact, and continuing to refer to those who left as "refugees" is preposterous. They need to get a life.

Interestingly, the U.S. has never had a problem with the concept of people coming in from the outside and establishing a new "country" in spite of protests from the locals, because that's pretty much how the U.S. was created.

There never was a country called "Palestine," nor an ethnicity/nationality called the "Palestinians." That nomenclature - with Roman origins - arose when it became apparent that the jews wanted to claim the area for a newly-formed country of Israel. The indigenous non-jews simply needed a name by which to refer to themselves.

Israeli horseshit, of course.
-------------------
Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​

-------------------
The automatic, ipso facto, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel

The above is a fraud you have attempted to commit on many occasions.

Nothing in the Treaty of Lausanne created your imagined “country of Pal’istan”, the place “Where Dreams Come True”

Why do you keep banging away at an issue that is not in refute?

 

[Hollie]

Obviously, there was a major migration of jews to that part of the world as part of the Zionist movement. So the ones in question are not the same ones who had lived there for a hundred generations, but rather the more recent arrivals. Their purchase of land in "Palestine" was somewhat compromised by the lack of formal deeds and related documentation LOCALLY. Many people (Arabs) who had lived on, and farmed land for "generations" found that "their" land had been sold out from under them, giving them no opportunity to contest the transactions.

There never was a country called "Palestine," nor an ethnicity/nationality called the "Palestinians." That nomenclature - with Roman origins - arose when it became apparent that the jews wanted to claim the area for a newly-formed country of Israel. The indigenous non-jews simply needed a name by which to refer to themselves.

The real problem arose because the jews insisted that the new country be overtly established as a "jewish state." It is ironic that the Arabs had (and continue to have) such a problem with this concept because there are scores of countries in the Middle East and around the world that are overtly "Islamic" states. And ONE jewish state is a problem? And of course, there is nothing prohibiting Arab/Muslims from being a citizens of Israel, or practicing their religion.

There is some disagreement about whether the jews evicted the local Arabs when the State of Israel was declared, or they left voluntarily on the advice of the surrounding Arab states. Regardless, it has been more than 70 years since the fact, and continuing to refer to those who left as "refugees" is preposterous. They need to get a life.

Interestingly, the U.S. has never had a problem with the concept of people coming in from the outside and establishing a new "country" in spite of protests from the locals, because that's pretty much how the U.S. was created.

There never was a country called "Palestine," nor an ethnicity/nationality called the "Palestinians." That nomenclature - with Roman origins - arose when it became apparent that the jews wanted to claim the area for a newly-formed country of Israel. The indigenous non-jews simply needed a name by which to refer to themselves.

Israeli horseshit, of course.
-------------------
Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​

-------------------
The automatic, ipso facto, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel

The above is a fraud you have attempted to commit on many occasions.

Nothing in the Treaty of Lausanne created your imagined “country of Pal’istan”, the place “Where Dreams Come True”

Why do you keep banging away at an issue that is not in refute?

It is in refute. That’s why I refuted it.

You have cut and pasted that snippet a minimum of 212 times and never once did you identify how the Treaty of Lausanne created your imagined, Country of Pal’istan”, the place “Where Dreams Come True”

 

[P F Tinmore]

Obviously, there was a major migration of jews to that part of the world as part of the Zionist movement. So the ones in question are not the same ones who had lived there for a hundred generations, but rather the more recent arrivals. Their purchase of land in "Palestine" was somewhat compromised by the lack of formal deeds and related documentation LOCALLY. Many people (Arabs) who had lived on, and farmed land for "generations" found that "their" land had been sold out from under them, giving them no opportunity to contest the transactions.

There never was a country called "Palestine," nor an ethnicity/nationality called the "Palestinians." That nomenclature - with Roman origins - arose when it became apparent that the jews wanted to claim the area for a newly-formed country of Israel. The indigenous non-jews simply needed a name by which to refer to themselves.

The real problem arose because the jews insisted that the new country be overtly established as a "jewish state." It is ironic that the Arabs had (and continue to have) such a problem with this concept because there are scores of countries in the Middle East and around the world that are overtly "Islamic" states. And ONE jewish state is a problem? And of course, there is nothing prohibiting Arab/Muslims from being a citizens of Israel, or practicing their religion.

There is some disagreement about whether the jews evicted the local Arabs when the State of Israel was declared, or they left voluntarily on the advice of the surrounding Arab states. Regardless, it has been more than 70 years since the fact, and continuing to refer to those who left as "refugees" is preposterous. They need to get a life.

Interestingly, the U.S. has never had a problem with the concept of people coming in from the outside and establishing a new "country" in spite of protests from the locals, because that's pretty much how the U.S. was created.

There never was a country called "Palestine," nor an ethnicity/nationality called the "Palestinians." That nomenclature - with Roman origins - arose when it became apparent that the jews wanted to claim the area for a newly-formed country of Israel. The indigenous non-jews simply needed a name by which to refer to themselves.

Israeli horseshit, of course.
-------------------
Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​

-------------------
The automatic, ipso facto, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel

The above is a fraud you have attempted to commit on many occasions.

Nothing in the Treaty of Lausanne created your imagined “country of Pal’istan”, the place “Where Dreams Come True”

Why do you keep banging away at an issue that is not in refute?

It is in refute. That’s why I refuted it.

You have cut and pasted that snippet a minimum of 212 times and never once did you identify how the Treaty of Lausanne created your imagined, Country of Pal’istan”, the place “Where Dreams Come True”

I never said it did.

You just have a reading comprehension problem.

 

[Hollie]

Obviously, there was a major migration of jews to that part of the world as part of the Zionist movement. So the ones in question are not the same ones who had lived there for a hundred generations, but rather the more recent arrivals. Their purchase of land in "Palestine" was somewhat compromised by the lack of formal deeds and related documentation LOCALLY. Many people (Arabs) who had lived on, and farmed land for "generations" found that "their" land had been sold out from under them, giving them no opportunity to contest the transactions.

There never was a country called "Palestine," nor an ethnicity/nationality called the "Palestinians." That nomenclature - with Roman origins - arose when it became apparent that the jews wanted to claim the area for a newly-formed country of Israel. The indigenous non-jews simply needed a name by which to refer to themselves.

The real problem arose because the jews insisted that the new country be overtly established as a "jewish state." It is ironic that the Arabs had (and continue to have) such a problem with this concept because there are scores of countries in the Middle East and around the world that are overtly "Islamic" states. And ONE jewish state is a problem? And of course, there is nothing prohibiting Arab/Muslims from being a citizens of Israel, or practicing their religion.

There is some disagreement about whether the jews evicted the local Arabs when the State of Israel was declared, or they left voluntarily on the advice of the surrounding Arab states. Regardless, it has been more than 70 years since the fact, and continuing to refer to those who left as "refugees" is preposterous. They need to get a life.

Interestingly, the U.S. has never had a problem with the concept of people coming in from the outside and establishing a new "country" in spite of protests from the locals, because that's pretty much how the U.S. was created.

There never was a country called "Palestine," nor an ethnicity/nationality called the "Palestinians." That nomenclature - with Roman origins - arose when it became apparent that the jews wanted to claim the area for a newly-formed country of Israel. The indigenous non-jews simply needed a name by which to refer to themselves.

Israeli horseshit, of course.
-------------------
Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​

-------------------
The automatic, ipso facto, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel

The above is a fraud you have attempted to commit on many occasions.

Nothing in the Treaty of Lausanne created your imagined “country of Pal’istan”, the place “Where Dreams Come True”

Why do you keep banging away at an issue that is not in refute?

It is in refute. That’s why I refuted it.

You have cut and pasted that snippet a minimum of 212 times and never once did you identify how the Treaty of Lausanne created your imagined, Country of Pal’istan”, the place “Where Dreams Come True”

I never said it did.

You just have a reading comprehension problem.

Actually, you have a problem with honesty and integrity.

What territory was transferred to “Pal’istan “.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Israeli horseshit, of course.
-------------------
Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​

-------------------
The automatic, ipso facto, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel

The above is a fraud you have attempted to commit on many occasions.

Nothing in the Treaty of Lausanne created your imagined “country of Pal’istan”, the place “Where Dreams Come True”

Why do you keep banging away at an issue that is not in refute?

It is in refute. That’s why I refuted it.

You have cut and pasted that snippet a minimum of 212 times and never once did you identify how the Treaty of Lausanne created your imagined, Country of Pal’istan”, the place “Where Dreams Come True”

I never said it did.

You just have a reading comprehension problem.

Actually, you have a problem with honesty and integrity.

What territory was transferred to “Pal’istan “.

Why do you post here when you know so little?
------------
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.

Upon its detachment from the Ottomans, the territory of Palestine became distinct from its neighboring countries.6In fact, this separation began between Palestine and the newly created Arab ‘states’: Trans-Jordan (as it was called), Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon.7 Soon thereafter, Palestine’s frontiers acquired permanent recognition through bilateral agreements with its neighbors. Following the international legal framework that had been established by the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne ending the Ottoman nominal/official sovereignty over the Arab Middle East, each of the four countries instituted a separate nationality for its population through domestic legislation. Nationalities in these countries have since then become well established.

Nationality constitutes a legal bond that connects individuals with a specific territory, making them citizens of that territory. It is therefore imperative to examine the boundaries of Palestine in order to define the piece of land on which Palestinian nationality was established. Determining borders will also help us identify the new nationalities of the inhabitants in the neighboring countries who were Ottoman citizens as well. Such a determination will thus identify, by exclusion, those who held Palestinian nationality.

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel

 

[Hollie]

The above is a fraud you have attempted to commit on many occasions.

Nothing in the Treaty of Lausanne created your imagined “country of Pal’istan”, the place “Where Dreams Come True”

Why do you keep banging away at an issue that is not in refute?

It is in refute. That’s why I refuted it.

You have cut and pasted that snippet a minimum of 212 times and never once did you identify how the Treaty of Lausanne created your imagined, Country of Pal’istan”, the place “Where Dreams Come True”

I never said it did.

You just have a reading comprehension problem.

Actually, you have a problem with honesty and integrity.

What territory was transferred to “Pal’istan “.

Why do you post here when you know so little?
------------
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.

Upon its detachment from the Ottomans, the territory of Palestine became distinct from its neighboring countries.6In fact, this separation began between Palestine and the newly created Arab ‘states’: Trans-Jordan (as it was called), Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon.7 Soon thereafter, Palestine’s frontiers acquired permanent recognition through bilateral agreements with its neighbors. Following the international legal framework that had been established by the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne ending the Ottoman nominal/official sovereignty over the Arab Middle East, each of the four countries instituted a separate nationality for its population through domestic legislation. Nationalities in these countries have since then become well established.

Nationality constitutes a legal bond that connects individuals with a specific territory, making them citizens of that territory. It is therefore imperative to examine the boundaries of Palestine in order to define the piece of land on which Palestinian nationality was established. Determining borders will also help us identify the new nationalities of the inhabitants in the neighboring countries who were Ottoman citizens as well. Such a determination will thus identify, by exclusion, those who held Palestinian nationality.

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel

Indeed, why do you post here when you know so little?

Indeed, an opinion piece is not the Treaty of Lausanne.

What territory was transferred to a “country of “Pal’istan”?