Finally, Israel and Palestine is a US election issue.

[montelatici]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You missed the intention again. And you've stepped around the discussion. Article 30 does not apply to the Mandate for Lebanon or the Mandate for Palestine; as they were both segments of multiple Sanjuks (NOT STATES) of the former Ottoman Empire.

What does all that have to do with my post?

There was no requirement for the Allied Powers to take any action relative to the acceptance of the territory by treaty. Acceptance it all that is required.

Yes there was.
-------------------------
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.”​

-------------------------
And being the citizens of Palestine it was their prerogative to determine immigration.

(COMMENT)

Actually NOT!

The Treaty of Lausanne had to cover a multitude of territorial issues over a vast number of territories. Article 30, like all the Articles of the Treaty, was not exclusively applicable to all.

Well before the Treaty of Lausanne (years), the Allied Powers had determined and made it known their intention to create special conditions for the territory (yet to be determined) of Palestine. Well before the treaty, the Allied Powers had determined the need for and the placement of a Jewish National Home; as well as the need for special consideration to unique immigration and citizenship requirements to bring the immigrants up in the same status as the inhabitants. Just as the Treaty was (generally) written to meet the entire landscape beyonds the boundaries of Turkey, the Mandate for Palestine contained the unique aspects and instructions to fulfill the intentions of the Allied Powers.

In 1916 Britain and France signed the Sykes-Picot Agreement, which divided the Arab region into Zones of Influence (ZoI). Lebanon and Syria were assigned to France, Jordan and Iraq to Britain and Palestine was to be internationalized. THAT DID NOT HAPPEN. In 1922 The Council of the League of Nations issued a Mandate for Palestine. The Mandate was in favor of the establishment for the Jewish people a homeland in Palestine.
​

Article 30 applied specifically to "States" (including Vassal or Tributary) detached from Turkey (The Balkan States, Egypt, Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Macedonia, Hungary, as examples) (Ottoman Partitions The Kingdoms of Nejd and Hejaz was formed, which in 1932 became the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, examples of States NOT covered by the Treaty of Lausanne). But in the Middle East, the Ottoman Territorial Administrations was broken down slightly difference into Sanjuks (Districts) and Vilayets (Provinces). But NOT States or self governing regions [Vassal (tribal) or Tributary (self-governing paying tribute)].... In the Middle East, the two Vilayets that include, what we consider today as Palestine, were the Vilayet of Beirut (including the Sanjuks of Latakia, Tripoli, Lebanon, Beirut, Acre, Balqa, Jerusalem), and the Vilayet of Syria (including the Sanjuks of Hama, Damascus, Hauran, and Maan). As I've mentioned many times before, the Region of Palestine was neither a State (Independent, Vassal or Tributary) or a Political Subdivision (Sanjuk or Vilayet). THUS, Article 30 is not applicable to the issue under discussion.

The Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic renounces title and right to the Region we call Palestine, which was then was transferred to the Mandatory for administration and disposition under Article 16 (the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned). Neither The Treaty of Lausanne or the Mandate for Palestine granted or promised the inhabitants any particular future or any future authority, or any specific territory (within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers). While that may have been an intention for most of the detached territories, the intention for Palestine was outlined in the Mandate.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Treaty of Lausanne had to cover a multitude of territorial issues over a vast number of territories. Article 30, like all the Articles of the Treaty, was not exclusively applicable to all.​

Where does it say that?

LOL

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You missed the intention again. And you've stepped around the discussion. Article 30 does not apply to the Mandate for Lebanon or the Mandate for Palestine; as they were both segments of multiple Sanjuks (NOT STATES) of the former Ottoman Empire.

What does all that have to do with my post?

There was no requirement for the Allied Powers to take any action relative to the acceptance of the territory by treaty. Acceptance it all that is required.

Yes there was.
-------------------------
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.”​

-------------------------
And being the citizens of Palestine it was their prerogative to determine immigration.

(COMMENT)

Actually NOT!

The Treaty of Lausanne had to cover a multitude of territorial issues over a vast number of territories. Article 30, like all the Articles of the Treaty, was not exclusively applicable to all.

Well before the Treaty of Lausanne (years), the Allied Powers had determined and made it known their intention to create special conditions for the territory (yet to be determined) of Palestine. Well before the treaty, the Allied Powers had determined the need for and the placement of a Jewish National Home; as well as the need for special consideration to unique immigration and citizenship requirements to bring the immigrants up in the same status as the inhabitants. Just as the Treaty was (generally) written to meet the entire landscape beyonds the boundaries of Turkey, the Mandate for Palestine contained the unique aspects and instructions to fulfill the intentions of the Allied Powers.

In 1916 Britain and France signed the Sykes-Picot Agreement, which divided the Arab region into Zones of Influence (ZoI). Lebanon and Syria were assigned to France, Jordan and Iraq to Britain and Palestine was to be internationalized. THAT DID NOT HAPPEN. In 1922 The Council of the League of Nations issued a Mandate for Palestine. The Mandate was in favor of the establishment for the Jewish people a homeland in Palestine.
​

Article 30 applied specifically to "States" (including Vassal or Tributary) detached from Turkey (The Balkan States, Egypt, Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Macedonia, Hungary, as examples) (Ottoman Partitions The Kingdoms of Nejd and Hejaz was formed, which in 1932 became the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, examples of States NOT covered by the Treaty of Lausanne). But in the Middle East, the Ottoman Territorial Administrations was broken down slightly difference into Sanjuks (Districts) and Vilayets (Provinces). But NOT States or self governing regions [Vassal (tribal) or Tributary (self-governing paying tribute)].... In the Middle East, the two Vilayets that include, what we consider today as Palestine, were the Vilayet of Beirut (including the Sanjuks of Latakia, Tripoli, Lebanon, Beirut, Acre, Balqa, Jerusalem), and the Vilayet of Syria (including the Sanjuks of Hama, Damascus, Hauran, and Maan). As I've mentioned many times before, the Region of Palestine was neither a State (Independent, Vassal or Tributary) or a Political Subdivision (Sanjuk or Vilayet). THUS, Article 30 is not applicable to the issue under discussion.

The Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic renounces title and right to the Region we call Palestine, which was then was transferred to the Mandatory for administration and disposition under Article 16 (the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned). Neither The Treaty of Lausanne or the Mandate for Palestine granted or promised the inhabitants any particular future or any future authority, or any specific territory (within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers). While that may have been an intention for most of the detached territories, the intention for Palestine was outlined in the Mandate.

Most Respectfully,
R

But in the Middle East, the Ottoman Territorial Administrations was broken down slightly difference into Sanjuks (Districts) and Vilayets (Provinces). But NOT States or self governing regions...​

Lebanon, Syria, Transjordan, and Palestine were all considered to be successor states.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Article 30 Applies to the singular issue of "Nationality;" not sovereignty and not independence.

The Treaty of Lausanne had to cover a multitude of territorial issues over a vast number of territories. Article 30, like all the Articles of the Treaty, was not exclusively applicable to all.​

Where does it say that?

(COMMENT)

Read Part I, Section II - Nationality:

Article 30 applies to "State to which such territory is transferred;" NOT partitions created by the Allied Powers. Just what state(s) were the Zones of Interest "A" and "B" transferred to? None... They were districts and provinces that were not associated to any particular "state of kingdom;" either before or after the treaty was enacted.

If there was a specific relevance to Mandates in 1923/1924 to which the Treaty applied, it would have stated so in the text.

The territories were not like the other that reverted back to self-determinant governments. The entire purpose of Section II - Nationality was to avoid the creation of "Stateless People."

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

Where does say that?

"NATIONALITY.
ARTICLE 30.

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

As a comparison, in the Syrian Mandate, there was no state of Syria or of the Lebanon, yet the Syrian Mandate stated that there were nationals of Syria and the Lebanon.

"ARTICLE 3 The Mandatory shall be entrusted with the exclusive control of the foreign relations of Syria and the Lebanon and with the right to issue exequaturs to the consuls appointed by foreign Powers. Nationals of Syria and the Lebanon living outside the limits of the territory shall be under the diplomatic and consular protection of the Mandatory."

http://www.ndu.edu.lb/Lerc/resources/French Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon.pdf

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is not correct. You're making the mistake by trying to associate the names.

P F Tinmore, et al,

You missed the intention again. And you've stepped around the discussion. Article 30 does not apply to the Mandate for Lebanon or the Mandate for Palestine; as they were both segments of multiple Sanjuks (NOT STATES) of the former Ottoman Empire.

What does all that have to do with my post?

There was no requirement for the Allied Powers to take any action relative to the acceptance of the territory by treaty. Acceptance it all that is required.

Yes there was.
-------------------------
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.”​

-------------------------
And being the citizens of Palestine it was their prerogative to determine immigration.

(COMMENT)

Actually NOT!

The Treaty of Lausanne had to cover a multitude of territorial issues over a vast number of territories. Article 30, like all the Articles of the Treaty, was not exclusively applicable to all.

Well before the Treaty of Lausanne (years), the Allied Powers had determined and made it known their intention to create special conditions for the territory (yet to be determined) of Palestine. Well before the treaty, the Allied Powers had determined the need for and the placement of a Jewish National Home; as well as the need for special consideration to unique immigration and citizenship requirements to bring the immigrants up in the same status as the inhabitants. Just as the Treaty was (generally) written to meet the entire landscape beyonds the boundaries of Turkey, the Mandate for Palestine contained the unique aspects and instructions to fulfill the intentions of the Allied Powers.

In 1916 Britain and France signed the Sykes-Picot Agreement, which divided the Arab region into Zones of Influence (ZoI). Lebanon and Syria were assigned to France, Jordan and Iraq to Britain and Palestine was to be internationalized. THAT DID NOT HAPPEN. In 1922 The Council of the League of Nations issued a Mandate for Palestine. The Mandate was in favor of the establishment for the Jewish people a homeland in Palestine.
​

Article 30 applied specifically to "States" (including Vassal or Tributary) detached from Turkey (The Balkan States, Egypt, Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Macedonia, Hungary, as examples) (Ottoman Partitions The Kingdoms of Nejd and Hejaz was formed, which in 1932 became the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, examples of States NOT covered by the Treaty of Lausanne). But in the Middle East, the Ottoman Territorial Administrations was broken down slightly difference into Sanjuks (Districts) and Vilayets (Provinces). But NOT States or self governing regions [Vassal (tribal) or Tributary (self-governing paying tribute)].... In the Middle East, the two Vilayets that include, what we consider today as Palestine, were the Vilayet of Beirut (including the Sanjuks of Latakia, Tripoli, Lebanon, Beirut, Acre, Balqa, Jerusalem), and the Vilayet of Syria (including the Sanjuks of Hama, Damascus, Hauran, and Maan). As I've mentioned many times before, the Region of Palestine was neither a State (Independent, Vassal or Tributary) or a Political Subdivision (Sanjuk or Vilayet). THUS, Article 30 is not applicable to the issue under discussion.

The Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic renounces title and right to the Region we call Palestine, which was then was transferred to the Mandatory for administration and disposition under Article 16 (the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned). Neither The Treaty of Lausanne or the Mandate for Palestine granted or promised the inhabitants any particular future or any future authority, or any specific territory (within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers). While that may have been an intention for most of the detached territories, the intention for Palestine was outlined in the Mandate.

Most Respectfully,
R

But in the Middle East, the Ottoman Territorial Administrations was broken down slightly difference into Sanjuks (Districts) and Vilayets (Provinces). But NOT States or self governing regions...​

Lebanon, Syria, Transjordan, and Palestine were all considered to be successor states.

(COMMENT)

The current State of Lebanon was a composite of the southern part of the Tripoli Sanjuk, the Sanjuk of Lebanon, and the northern portion of the Acre Sanjuk.

The State of Syria was a composite of the Sanjuk of Latakia, most of the Vilayet of Aleppo, the Sanjuk of Hama, and the Sanjuk of Damascus, the State of Transjordan was a composite of the Sanjuks Maan and Hauran. Transjordan was actually set up after the Unconditional Mudor Armistice of 1918; with Hashemite Emir Faisal set up an independent government in Damascus. Although for political reasons tied directly to the Syke-Picot Agreement, the ZoI of Damascus revered back to French control.

None of the pre-surrender districts and provinces that you mentioned were successor governments. They were political subdivisions under the responsible "Divan" (a council that advised the Sultan). At time in the history of the Ottoman Empire, the region had Eyalets ( Beylerbeys ), the next order of government above a Vilayet.

I think you are grasping at straws.

And again I remind you that, the title and rights were renounced to the Allied Powers and the Mandatories selected by the Allied Powers. All rights and titles by treaty = all rights and titles by treaty. There is nothing greater than that in terms of independence and sovereignty.

While I agree in part with some of what our friend "montelatici" has cited, the Article 3 which he sites is a (French) Mandate Article, derivative of the substance behind the treaty.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is not correct. You're making the mistake by trying to associate the names.

P F Tinmore, et al,

You missed the intention again. And you've stepped around the discussion. Article 30 does not apply to the Mandate for Lebanon or the Mandate for Palestine; as they were both segments of multiple Sanjuks (NOT STATES) of the former Ottoman Empire.

What does all that have to do with my post?

There was no requirement for the Allied Powers to take any action relative to the acceptance of the territory by treaty. Acceptance it all that is required.

Yes there was.
-------------------------
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.”​

-------------------------
And being the citizens of Palestine it was their prerogative to determine immigration.

(COMMENT)

Actually NOT!

The Treaty of Lausanne had to cover a multitude of territorial issues over a vast number of territories. Article 30, like all the Articles of the Treaty, was not exclusively applicable to all.

Well before the Treaty of Lausanne (years), the Allied Powers had determined and made it known their intention to create special conditions for the territory (yet to be determined) of Palestine. Well before the treaty, the Allied Powers had determined the need for and the placement of a Jewish National Home; as well as the need for special consideration to unique immigration and citizenship requirements to bring the immigrants up in the same status as the inhabitants. Just as the Treaty was (generally) written to meet the entire landscape beyonds the boundaries of Turkey, the Mandate for Palestine contained the unique aspects and instructions to fulfill the intentions of the Allied Powers.

In 1916 Britain and France signed the Sykes-Picot Agreement, which divided the Arab region into Zones of Influence (ZoI). Lebanon and Syria were assigned to France, Jordan and Iraq to Britain and Palestine was to be internationalized. THAT DID NOT HAPPEN. In 1922 The Council of the League of Nations issued a Mandate for Palestine. The Mandate was in favor of the establishment for the Jewish people a homeland in Palestine.
​

Article 30 applied specifically to "States" (including Vassal or Tributary) detached from Turkey (The Balkan States, Egypt, Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Macedonia, Hungary, as examples) (Ottoman Partitions The Kingdoms of Nejd and Hejaz was formed, which in 1932 became the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, examples of States NOT covered by the Treaty of Lausanne). But in the Middle East, the Ottoman Territorial Administrations was broken down slightly difference into Sanjuks (Districts) and Vilayets (Provinces). But NOT States or self governing regions [Vassal (tribal) or Tributary (self-governing paying tribute)].... In the Middle East, the two Vilayets that include, what we consider today as Palestine, were the Vilayet of Beirut (including the Sanjuks of Latakia, Tripoli, Lebanon, Beirut, Acre, Balqa, Jerusalem), and the Vilayet of Syria (including the Sanjuks of Hama, Damascus, Hauran, and Maan). As I've mentioned many times before, the Region of Palestine was neither a State (Independent, Vassal or Tributary) or a Political Subdivision (Sanjuk or Vilayet). THUS, Article 30 is not applicable to the issue under discussion.

The Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic renounces title and right to the Region we call Palestine, which was then was transferred to the Mandatory for administration and disposition under Article 16 (the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned). Neither The Treaty of Lausanne or the Mandate for Palestine granted or promised the inhabitants any particular future or any future authority, or any specific territory (within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers). While that may have been an intention for most of the detached territories, the intention for Palestine was outlined in the Mandate.

Most Respectfully,
R

But in the Middle East, the Ottoman Territorial Administrations was broken down slightly difference into Sanjuks (Districts) and Vilayets (Provinces). But NOT States or self governing regions...​

Lebanon, Syria, Transjordan, and Palestine were all considered to be successor states.

(COMMENT)

The current State of Lebanon was a composite of the southern part of the Tripoli Sanjuk, the Sanjuk of Lebanon, and the northern portion of the Acre Sanjuk.

The State of Syria was a composite of the Sanjuk of Latakia, most of the Vilayet of Aleppo, the Sanjuk of Hama, and the Sanjuk of Damascus, the State of Transjordan was a composite of the Sanjuks Maan and Hauran. Transjordan was actually set up after the Unconditional Mudor Armistice of 1918; with Hashemite Emir Faisal set up an independent government in Damascus. Although for political reasons tied directly to the Syke-Picot Agreement, the ZoI of Damascus revered back to French control.

None of the pre-surrender districts and provinces that you mentioned were successor governments. They were political subdivisions under the responsible "Divan" (a council that advised the Sultan). At time in the history of the Ottoman Empire, the region had Eyalets ( Beylerbeys ), the next order of government above a Vilayet.

I think you are grasping at straws.

And again I remind you that, the title and rights were renounced to the Allied Powers and the Mandatories selected by the Allied Powers. All rights and titles by treaty = all rights and titles by treaty. There is nothing greater than that in terms of independence and sovereignty.

While I agree in part with some of what our friend "montelatici" has cited, the Article 3 which he sites is a (French) Mandate Article, derivative of the substance behind the treaty.

Most Respectfully,
R

None of the pre-surrender districts and provinces that you mentioned were successor governments.​

That is true though I think you say that to mislead. Post war treaties divided the region. Territories were named and defined by international borders. Upon the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne, these defined territories became successor states.
-------------------------
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.”​

------------------
Palestine was the state to which such territory was transferred and the Palestinians were the citizens of that state as stated in the Treaty of Lausanne and confirmed by local law.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You missed the intention again. And you've stepped around the discussion. Article 30 does not apply to the Mandate for Lebanon or the Mandate for Palestine; as they were both segments of multiple Sanjuks (NOT STATES) of the former Ottoman Empire.

What does all that have to do with my post?

There was no requirement for the Allied Powers to take any action relative to the acceptance of the territory by treaty. Acceptance it all that is required.

Yes there was.
-------------------------
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.”​

-------------------------
And being the citizens of Palestine it was their prerogative to determine immigration.

(COMMENT)

Actually NOT!

The Treaty of Lausanne had to cover a multitude of territorial issues over a vast number of territories. Article 30, like all the Articles of the Treaty, was not exclusively applicable to all.

Well before the Treaty of Lausanne (years), the Allied Powers had determined and made it known their intention to create special conditions for the territory (yet to be determined) of Palestine. Well before the treaty, the Allied Powers had determined the need for and the placement of a Jewish National Home; as well as the need for special consideration to unique immigration and citizenship requirements to bring the immigrants up in the same status as the inhabitants. Just as the Treaty was (generally) written to meet the entire landscape beyonds the boundaries of Turkey, the Mandate for Palestine contained the unique aspects and instructions to fulfill the intentions of the Allied Powers.

In 1916 Britain and France signed the Sykes-Picot Agreement, which divided the Arab region into Zones of Influence (ZoI). Lebanon and Syria were assigned to France, Jordan and Iraq to Britain and Palestine was to be internationalized. THAT DID NOT HAPPEN. In 1922 The Council of the League of Nations issued a Mandate for Palestine. The Mandate was in favor of the establishment for the Jewish people a homeland in Palestine.
​

Article 30 applied specifically to "States" (including Vassal or Tributary) detached from Turkey (The Balkan States, Egypt, Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Macedonia, Hungary, as examples) (Ottoman Partitions The Kingdoms of Nejd and Hejaz was formed, which in 1932 became the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, examples of States NOT covered by the Treaty of Lausanne). But in the Middle East, the Ottoman Territorial Administrations was broken down slightly difference into Sanjuks (Districts) and Vilayets (Provinces). But NOT States or self governing regions [Vassal (tribal) or Tributary (self-governing paying tribute)].... In the Middle East, the two Vilayets that include, what we consider today as Palestine, were the Vilayet of Beirut (including the Sanjuks of Latakia, Tripoli, Lebanon, Beirut, Acre, Balqa, Jerusalem), and the Vilayet of Syria (including the Sanjuks of Hama, Damascus, Hauran, and Maan). As I've mentioned many times before, the Region of Palestine was neither a State (Independent, Vassal or Tributary) or a Political Subdivision (Sanjuk or Vilayet). THUS, Article 30 is not applicable to the issue under discussion.

The Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic renounces title and right to the Region we call Palestine, which was then was transferred to the Mandatory for administration and disposition under Article 16 (the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned). Neither The Treaty of Lausanne or the Mandate for Palestine granted or promised the inhabitants any particular future or any future authority, or any specific territory (within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers). While that may have been an intention for most of the detached territories, the intention for Palestine was outlined in the Mandate.

Most Respectfully,
R

But in the Middle East, the Ottoman Territorial Administrations was broken down slightly difference into Sanjuks (Districts) and Vilayets (Provinces). But NOT States or self governing regions...​

Lebanon, Syria, Transjordan, and Palestine were all considered to be successor states.

WRONG Just read the reply to monte'e oft linked letter to the British government in 1922. It states that Palestine was not a successor state but a mandate.

 

[Phoenall]

Where does say that?

"NATIONALITY.
ARTICLE 30.

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

As a comparison, in the Syrian Mandate, there was no state of Syria or of the Lebanon, yet the Syrian Mandate stated that there were nationals of Syria and the Lebanon.

"ARTICLE 3 The Mandatory shall be entrusted with the exclusive control of the foreign relations of Syria and the Lebanon and with the right to issue exequaturs to the consuls appointed by foreign Powers. Nationals of Syria and the Lebanon living outside the limits of the territory shall be under the diplomatic and consular protection of the Mandatory."

http://www.ndu.edu.lb/Lerc/resources/French Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon.pdf

So what state were they transferred to, and when did it come into existence ?

Syria and Lebanon where already "states" in their own right under the Ottomans so they became fully fledged states under the mandate system

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is not correct. You're making the mistake by trying to associate the names.

P F Tinmore, et al,

You missed the intention again. And you've stepped around the discussion. Article 30 does not apply to the Mandate for Lebanon or the Mandate for Palestine; as they were both segments of multiple Sanjuks (NOT STATES) of the former Ottoman Empire.

What does all that have to do with my post?

There was no requirement for the Allied Powers to take any action relative to the acceptance of the territory by treaty. Acceptance it all that is required.

Yes there was.
-------------------------
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.”​

-------------------------
And being the citizens of Palestine it was their prerogative to determine immigration.

(COMMENT)

Actually NOT!

The Treaty of Lausanne had to cover a multitude of territorial issues over a vast number of territories. Article 30, like all the Articles of the Treaty, was not exclusively applicable to all.

Well before the Treaty of Lausanne (years), the Allied Powers had determined and made it known their intention to create special conditions for the territory (yet to be determined) of Palestine. Well before the treaty, the Allied Powers had determined the need for and the placement of a Jewish National Home; as well as the need for special consideration to unique immigration and citizenship requirements to bring the immigrants up in the same status as the inhabitants. Just as the Treaty was (generally) written to meet the entire landscape beyonds the boundaries of Turkey, the Mandate for Palestine contained the unique aspects and instructions to fulfill the intentions of the Allied Powers.

In 1916 Britain and France signed the Sykes-Picot Agreement, which divided the Arab region into Zones of Influence (ZoI). Lebanon and Syria were assigned to France, Jordan and Iraq to Britain and Palestine was to be internationalized. THAT DID NOT HAPPEN. In 1922 The Council of the League of Nations issued a Mandate for Palestine. The Mandate was in favor of the establishment for the Jewish people a homeland in Palestine.
​

Article 30 applied specifically to "States" (including Vassal or Tributary) detached from Turkey (The Balkan States, Egypt, Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Macedonia, Hungary, as examples) (Ottoman Partitions The Kingdoms of Nejd and Hejaz was formed, which in 1932 became the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, examples of States NOT covered by the Treaty of Lausanne). But in the Middle East, the Ottoman Territorial Administrations was broken down slightly difference into Sanjuks (Districts) and Vilayets (Provinces). But NOT States or self governing regions [Vassal (tribal) or Tributary (self-governing paying tribute)].... In the Middle East, the two Vilayets that include, what we consider today as Palestine, were the Vilayet of Beirut (including the Sanjuks of Latakia, Tripoli, Lebanon, Beirut, Acre, Balqa, Jerusalem), and the Vilayet of Syria (including the Sanjuks of Hama, Damascus, Hauran, and Maan). As I've mentioned many times before, the Region of Palestine was neither a State (Independent, Vassal or Tributary) or a Political Subdivision (Sanjuk or Vilayet). THUS, Article 30 is not applicable to the issue under discussion.

The Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic renounces title and right to the Region we call Palestine, which was then was transferred to the Mandatory for administration and disposition under Article 16 (the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned). Neither The Treaty of Lausanne or the Mandate for Palestine granted or promised the inhabitants any particular future or any future authority, or any specific territory (within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers). While that may have been an intention for most of the detached territories, the intention for Palestine was outlined in the Mandate.

Most Respectfully,
R

But in the Middle East, the Ottoman Territorial Administrations was broken down slightly difference into Sanjuks (Districts) and Vilayets (Provinces). But NOT States or self governing regions...​

Lebanon, Syria, Transjordan, and Palestine were all considered to be successor states.

(COMMENT)

The current State of Lebanon was a composite of the southern part of the Tripoli Sanjuk, the Sanjuk of Lebanon, and the northern portion of the Acre Sanjuk.

The State of Syria was a composite of the Sanjuk of Latakia, most of the Vilayet of Aleppo, the Sanjuk of Hama, and the Sanjuk of Damascus, the State of Transjordan was a composite of the Sanjuks Maan and Hauran. Transjordan was actually set up after the Unconditional Mudor Armistice of 1918; with Hashemite Emir Faisal set up an independent government in Damascus. Although for political reasons tied directly to the Syke-Picot Agreement, the ZoI of Damascus revered back to French control.

None of the pre-surrender districts and provinces that you mentioned were successor governments. They were political subdivisions under the responsible "Divan" (a council that advised the Sultan). At time in the history of the Ottoman Empire, the region had Eyalets ( Beylerbeys ), the next order of government above a Vilayet.

I think you are grasping at straws.

And again I remind you that, the title and rights were renounced to the Allied Powers and the Mandatories selected by the Allied Powers. All rights and titles by treaty = all rights and titles by treaty. There is nothing greater than that in terms of independence and sovereignty.

While I agree in part with some of what our friend "montelatici" has cited, the Article 3 which he sites is a (French) Mandate Article, derivative of the substance behind the treaty.

Most Respectfully,
R

None of the pre-surrender districts and provinces that you mentioned were successor governments.​

That is true though I think you say that to mislead. Post war treaties divided the region. Territories were named and defined by international borders. Upon the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne, these defined territories became successor states.
-------------------------
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.”​

------------------
Palestine was the state to which such territory was transferred and the Palestinians were the citizens of that state as stated in the Treaty of Lausanne and confirmed by local law.

Try again as what state were they transferred to to become citizens of

The actual wording is citizens of the mandate of Palestine

 

[theliq]

9/11 inside job, montelatici, et al,

Oh, more whining.

The fact is, Israel has the most powerful terrorist organization in the world, the IDF, and has killed 1000s more times the innocent civilians than any Palestinian national liberation has or will ever kill.

(COMMENT)

And I suppose that the Arab Palestinian is clean as the driven snow; 99 and 44 one-hundredths percent pure. And the Arab Palestinians never attacked the Olympics, and the Palestinians never killed a single American, and the Palestinians never hijacked a single plane or committed piracy on the high seas. I suppose that the Palestinians never committed a suicide bombing in against a purely civilian target, never attacked a school bus or the infirm or disabled. And I suppose that the Arab Palestinian did not fire a single rocket indiscriminately into Israel.

I suppose that all these civilians were located away from Arab Palestinian paramilitary activities. I suppose that there were not paramilitary targets in close proximity to densely populated civilian vicinities.

The lack of military prowess and the ineffectiveness of paramilitary activities and terrorist operations is no excuse. The Arab Palestinian Terrorist have said many times that they would kill more Israeli civilians if they could. It has only been within the last week that we discussed how the barbaric and bloodthirsty Arab Palestinians want to legitimize the Arabs in killing civilians.

If the international community places a moratorium on the prohibition against directly targeting the civilian population (as suggested), that would make your whole argument here invalid and immaterial. That would place the Arab Palestinian Population in great peril; not that the Israelis would intentionally target innocent civilians.

Most Respectfully,
R

Such Myopic Errant Nonsense from you Rocco

 

[theliq]

9/11 inside job, montelatici, et al,

Oh, more whining.

(COMMENT)

And I suppose that the Arab Palestinian is clean as the driven snow; 99 and 44 one-hundredths percent pure. And the Arab Palestinians never attacked the Olympics, and the Palestinians never killed a single American, and the Palestinians never hijacked a single plane or committed piracy on the high seas. I suppose that the Palestinians never committed a suicide bombing in against a purely civilian target, never attacked a school bus or the infirm or disabled. And I suppose that the Arab Palestinian did not fire a single rocket indiscriminately into Israel.

I suppose that all these civilians were located away from Arab Palestinian paramilitary activities. I suppose that there were not paramilitary targets in close proximity to densely populated civilian vicinities.

The lack of military prowess and the ineffectiveness of paramilitary activities and terrorist operations is no excuse. The Arab Palestinian Terrorist have said many times that they would kill more Israeli civilians if they could. It has only been within the last week that we discussed how the barbaric and bloodthirsty Arab Palestinians want to legitimize the Arabs in killing civilians.

If the international community places a moratorium on the prohibition against directly targeting the civilian population (as suggested), that would make your whole argument here invalid and immaterial. That would place the Arab Palestinian Population in great peril; not that the Israelis would intentionally target innocent civilians.

Most Respectfully,
R

Of course the Palestinians are not "as clean as the driven snow" but they are the ones that were driven from their homes and relegated to refugee camps. It is not unnatural for people that have undergone the horrors they have undergone to lash out. The Palestinians, after all, are not behaving any differently than the non-whites in South Africa and Rhodesia, the FLN in Algeria, the Tamils, the IRA, etc., etc. What bothers me are people such as yourself that will not ever admit that the migration of European Jews to Palestine and their success (with the help of the West in general) in evicting the native people and creating a state at the expense of the native people has no bearing on the behavior of the non-Jews (Muslims and Christians) of Palestine.

"...but they are the ones that were driven from their homes and relegated to refugee camps."

I mean, what a shame that the Arabs-Moslem squatters were forced from their homes in 1948 when the failed genocide by the Arab-Moslem armies was begun.

And, I think we can agree that the treatment of the Pal'istanians by the Arab-Moslem world is terrible. Those Pal'istanian internment camps in Jordan and elsewhere in the Arab-Moslem Middle East..., oh, the humanity, (sniff sniff).

Thank you for agreeing that the native people of Palestine were forced from their homes by European invaders.

I never agreed to that. Your reading comprehension skills are lacking.

As you should know, the Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese squatters were not "native people".

How can the people that were living in Palestine for thousands of years before the Europeans arrived be squatters. How can people born in Europe be natives of Palestine. Do you have a different definition of native than the standard one?

It's like shoving Shit Uphill with the Squatter Hollie..........To dialogue Monte with Hollie we have to decide if it's worth the effort.....in my opinion its NOT..steve..Keep up the great work,I trust the family are well Monte

 

[theliq]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is not correct. You're making the mistake by trying to associate the names.

P F Tinmore, et al,

You missed the intention again. And you've stepped around the discussion. Article 30 does not apply to the Mandate for Lebanon or the Mandate for Palestine; as they were both segments of multiple Sanjuks (NOT STATES) of the former Ottoman Empire.

What does all that have to do with my post?

​

Yes there was.
-------------------------
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.”​

-------------------------
And being the citizens of Palestine it was their prerogative to determine immigration.

(COMMENT)

Actually NOT!

The Treaty of Lausanne had to cover a multitude of territorial issues over a vast number of territories. Article 30, like all the Articles of the Treaty, was not exclusively applicable to all.

Well before the Treaty of Lausanne (years), the Allied Powers had determined and made it known their intention to create special conditions for the territory (yet to be determined) of Palestine. Well before the treaty, the Allied Powers had determined the need for and the placement of a Jewish National Home; as well as the need for special consideration to unique immigration and citizenship requirements to bring the immigrants up in the same status as the inhabitants. Just as the Treaty was (generally) written to meet the entire landscape beyonds the boundaries of Turkey, the Mandate for Palestine contained the unique aspects and instructions to fulfill the intentions of the Allied Powers.

In 1916 Britain and France signed the Sykes-Picot Agreement, which divided the Arab region into Zones of Influence (ZoI). Lebanon and Syria were assigned to France, Jordan and Iraq to Britain and Palestine was to be internationalized. THAT DID NOT HAPPEN. In 1922 The Council of the League of Nations issued a Mandate for Palestine. The Mandate was in favor of the establishment for the Jewish people a homeland in Palestine.
​

Article 30 applied specifically to "States" (including Vassal or Tributary) detached from Turkey (The Balkan States, Egypt, Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Macedonia, Hungary, as examples) (Ottoman Partitions The Kingdoms of Nejd and Hejaz was formed, which in 1932 became the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, examples of States NOT covered by the Treaty of Lausanne). But in the Middle East, the Ottoman Territorial Administrations was broken down slightly difference into Sanjuks (Districts) and Vilayets (Provinces). But NOT States or self governing regions [Vassal (tribal) or Tributary (self-governing paying tribute)].... In the Middle East, the two Vilayets that include, what we consider today as Palestine, were the Vilayet of Beirut (including the Sanjuks of Latakia, Tripoli, Lebanon, Beirut, Acre, Balqa, Jerusalem), and the Vilayet of Syria (including the Sanjuks of Hama, Damascus, Hauran, and Maan). As I've mentioned many times before, the Region of Palestine was neither a State (Independent, Vassal or Tributary) or a Political Subdivision (Sanjuk or Vilayet). THUS, Article 30 is not applicable to the issue under discussion.

The Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic renounces title and right to the Region we call Palestine, which was then was transferred to the Mandatory for administration and disposition under Article 16 (the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned). Neither The Treaty of Lausanne or the Mandate for Palestine granted or promised the inhabitants any particular future or any future authority, or any specific territory (within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers). While that may have been an intention for most of the detached territories, the intention for Palestine was outlined in the Mandate.

Most Respectfully,
R

But in the Middle East, the Ottoman Territorial Administrations was broken down slightly difference into Sanjuks (Districts) and Vilayets (Provinces). But NOT States or self governing regions...​

Lebanon, Syria, Transjordan, and Palestine were all considered to be successor states.

(COMMENT)

The current State of Lebanon was a composite of the southern part of the Tripoli Sanjuk, the Sanjuk of Lebanon, and the northern portion of the Acre Sanjuk.

The State of Syria was a composite of the Sanjuk of Latakia, most of the Vilayet of Aleppo, the Sanjuk of Hama, and the Sanjuk of Damascus, the State of Transjordan was a composite of the Sanjuks Maan and Hauran. Transjordan was actually set up after the Unconditional Mudor Armistice of 1918; with Hashemite Emir Faisal set up an independent government in Damascus. Although for political reasons tied directly to the Syke-Picot Agreement, the ZoI of Damascus revered back to French control.

None of the pre-surrender districts and provinces that you mentioned were successor governments. They were political subdivisions under the responsible "Divan" (a council that advised the Sultan). At time in the history of the Ottoman Empire, the region had Eyalets ( Beylerbeys ), the next order of government above a Vilayet.

I think you are grasping at straws.

And again I remind you that, the title and rights were renounced to the Allied Powers and the Mandatories selected by the Allied Powers. All rights and titles by treaty = all rights and titles by treaty. There is nothing greater than that in terms of independence and sovereignty.

While I agree in part with some of what our friend "montelatici" has cited, the Article 3 which he sites is a (French) Mandate Article, derivative of the substance behind the treaty.

Most Respectfully,
R

None of the pre-surrender districts and provinces that you mentioned were successor governments.​

That is true though I think you say that to mislead. Post war treaties divided the region. Territories were named and defined by international borders. Upon the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne, these defined territories became successor states.
-------------------------
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.”​

------------------
Palestine was the state to which such territory was transferred and the Palestinians were the citizens of that state as stated in the Treaty of Lausanne and confirmed by local law.

Try again as what state were they transferred to to become citizens of

The actual wording is citizens of the mandate of Palestine

Are U a Citezen yet

 

[theliq]

9/11 inside job, montelatici, et al,

Oh, more whining.

The fact is, Israel has the most powerful terrorist organization in the world, the IDF, and has killed 1000s more times the innocent civilians than any Palestinian national liberation has or will ever kill.

(COMMENT)

And I suppose that the Arab Palestinian is clean as the driven snow; 99 and 44 one-hundredths percent pure. And the Arab Palestinians never attacked the Olympics, and the Palestinians never killed a single American, and the Palestinians never hijacked a single plane or committed piracy on the high seas. I suppose that the Palestinians never committed a suicide bombing in against a purely civilian target, never attacked a school bus or the infirm or disabled. And I suppose that the Arab Palestinian did not fire a single rocket indiscriminately into Israel.

I suppose that all these civilians were located away from Arab Palestinian paramilitary activities. I suppose that there were not paramilitary targets in close proximity to densely populated civilian vicinities.

The lack of military prowess and the ineffectiveness of paramilitary activities and terrorist operations is no excuse. The Arab Palestinian Terrorist have said many times that they would kill more Israeli civilians if they could. It has only been within the last week that we discussed how the barbaric and bloodthirsty Arab Palestinians want to legitimize the Arabs in killing civilians.

If the international community places a moratorium on the prohibition against directly targeting the civilian population (as suggested), that would make your whole argument here invalid and immaterial. That would place the Arab Palestinian Population in great peril; not that the Israelis would intentionally target innocent civilians.

Most Respectfully,
R

Of course the Palestinians are not "as clean as the driven snow" but they are the ones that were driven from their homes and relegated to refugee camps. It is not unnatural for people that have undergone the horrors they have undergone to lash out. The Palestinians, after all, are not behaving any differently than the non-whites in South Africa and Rhodesia, the FLN in Algeria, the Tamils, the IRA, etc., etc. What bothers me are people such as yourself that will not ever admit that the migration of European Jews to Palestine and their success (with the help of the West in general) in evicting the native people and creating a state at the expense of the native people has no bearing on the behavior of the non-Jews (Muslims and Christians) of Palestine.

"...but they are the ones that were driven from their homes and relegated to refugee camps."

I mean, what a shame that the Arabs-Moslem squatters were forced from their homes in 1948 when the failed genocide by the Arab-Moslem armies was begun.

And, I think we can agree that the treatment of the Pal'istanians by the Arab-Moslem world is terrible. Those Pal'istanian internment camps in Jordan and elsewhere in the Arab-Moslem Middle East..., oh, the humanity, (sniff sniff).

Cretin is as CRETIN speaks

 

[montelatici]

Of course the Palestinians are not "as clean as the driven snow" but they are the ones that were driven from their homes and relegated to refugee camps. It is not unnatural for people that have undergone the horrors they have undergone to lash out. The Palestinians, after all, are not behaving any differently than the non-whites in South Africa and Rhodesia, the FLN in Algeria, the Tamils, the IRA, etc., etc. What bothers me are people such as yourself that will not ever admit that the migration of European Jews to Palestine and their success (with the help of the West in general) in evicting the native people and creating a state at the expense of the native people has no bearing on the behavior of the non-Jews (Muslims and Christians) of Palestine.

"...but they are the ones that were driven from their homes and relegated to refugee camps."

I mean, what a shame that the Arabs-Moslem squatters were forced from their homes in 1948 when the failed genocide by the Arab-Moslem armies was begun.

And, I think we can agree that the treatment of the Pal'istanians by the Arab-Moslem world is terrible. Those Pal'istanian internment camps in Jordan and elsewhere in the Arab-Moslem Middle East..., oh, the humanity, (sniff sniff).

Thank you for agreeing that the native people of Palestine were forced from their homes by European invaders.

I never agreed to that. Your reading comprehension skills are lacking.

As you should know, the Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese squatters were not "native people".

How can the people that were living in Palestine for thousands of years before the Europeans arrived be squatters. How can people born in Europe be natives of Palestine. Do you have a different definition of native than the standard one?

It's like shoving Shit Uphill with the Squatter Hollie..........To dialogue Monte with Hollie we have to decide if it's worth the effort.....in my opinion its NOT..steve..Keep up the great work,I trust the family are well Monte

Everything is fine here, how are things down under? But you're right, time to disengage from discussions with mollusk intelligence level posters.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Let not forget what we were talking about in this exchange; wchich started with your Post #113. We were talking about proving the accuracy of the Palestinian claim:

• Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right, we may not a waiver an inch or any part thereof, no matter what the reasons and circumstances and pressures.
​

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is not correct. You're making the mistake by trying to associate the names.

P F Tinmore, et al,

You missed the intention again. And you've stepped around the discussion. Article 30 does not apply to the Mandate for Lebanon or the Mandate for Palestine; as they were both segments of multiple Sanjuks (NOT STATES) of the former Ottoman Empire.

What does all that have to do with my post?

There was no requirement for the Allied Powers to take any action relative to the acceptance of the territory by treaty. Acceptance it all that is required.

Yes there was.
-------------------------
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.”​

-------------------------
And being the citizens of Palestine it was their prerogative to determine immigration.

(COMMENT)

Actually NOT!

The Treaty of Lausanne had to cover a multitude of territorial issues over a vast number of territories. Article 30, like all the Articles of the Treaty, was not exclusively applicable to all.

Well before the Treaty of Lausanne (years), the Allied Powers had determined and made it known their intention to create special conditions for the territory (yet to be determined) of Palestine. Well before the treaty, the Allied Powers had determined the need for and the placement of a Jewish National Home; as well as the need for special consideration to unique immigration and citizenship requirements to bring the immigrants up in the same status as the inhabitants. Just as the Treaty was (generally) written to meet the entire landscape beyonds the boundaries of Turkey, the Mandate for Palestine contained the unique aspects and instructions to fulfill the intentions of the Allied Powers.

In 1916 Britain and France signed the Sykes-Picot Agreement, which divided the Arab region into Zones of Influence (ZoI). Lebanon and Syria were assigned to France, Jordan and Iraq to Britain and Palestine was to be internationalized. THAT DID NOT HAPPEN. In 1922 The Council of the League of Nations issued a Mandate for Palestine. The Mandate was in favor of the establishment for the Jewish people a homeland in Palestine.
​

Article 30 applied specifically to "States" (including Vassal or Tributary) detached from Turkey (The Balkan States, Egypt, Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Macedonia, Hungary, as examples) (Ottoman Partitions The Kingdoms of Nejd and Hejaz was formed, which in 1932 became the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, examples of States NOT covered by the Treaty of Lausanne). But in the Middle East, the Ottoman Territorial Administrations was broken down slightly difference into Sanjuks (Districts) and Vilayets (Provinces). But NOT States or self governing regions [Vassal (tribal) or Tributary (self-governing paying tribute)].... In the Middle East, the two Vilayets that include, what we consider today as Palestine, were the Vilayet of Beirut (including the Sanjuks of Latakia, Tripoli, Lebanon, Beirut, Acre, Balqa, Jerusalem), and the Vilayet of Syria (including the Sanjuks of Hama, Damascus, Hauran, and Maan). As I've mentioned many times before, the Region of Palestine was neither a State (Independent, Vassal or Tributary) or a Political Subdivision (Sanjuk or Vilayet). THUS, Article 30 is not applicable to the issue under discussion.

The Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic renounces title and right to the Region we call Palestine, which was then was transferred to the Mandatory for administration and disposition under Article 16 (the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned). Neither The Treaty of Lausanne or the Mandate for Palestine granted or promised the inhabitants any particular future or any future authority, or any specific territory (within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers). While that may have been an intention for most of the detached territories, the intention for Palestine was outlined in the Mandate.

Most Respectfully,
R

But in the Middle East, the Ottoman Territorial Administrations was broken down slightly difference into Sanjuks (Districts) and Vilayets (Provinces). But NOT States or self governing regions...​

Lebanon, Syria, Transjordan, and Palestine were all considered to be successor states.

(COMMENT)

The current State of Lebanon was a composite of the southern part of the Tripoli Sanjuk, the Sanjuk of Lebanon, and the northern portion of the Acre Sanjuk.

The State of Syria was a composite of the Sanjuk of Latakia, most of the Vilayet of Aleppo, the Sanjuk of Hama, and the Sanjuk of Damascus, the State of Transjordan was a composite of the Sanjuks Maan and Hauran. Transjordan was actually set up after the Unconditional Mudor Armistice of 1918; with Hashemite Emir Faisal set up an independent government in Damascus. Although for political reasons tied directly to the Syke-Picot Agreement, the ZoI of Damascus revered back to French control.

None of the pre-surrender districts and provinces that you mentioned were successor governments. They were political subdivisions under the responsible "Divan" (a council that advised the Sultan). At time in the history of the Ottoman Empire, the region had Eyalets ( Beylerbeys ), the next order of government above a Vilayet.

I think you are grasping at straws.

And again I remind you that, the title and rights were renounced to the Allied Powers and the Mandatories selected by the Allied Powers. All rights and titles by treaty = all rights and titles by treaty. There is nothing greater than that in terms of independence and sovereignty.

While I agree in part with some of what our friend "montelatici" has cited, the Article 3 which he sites is a (French) Mandate Article, derivative of the substance behind the treaty.

Most Respectfully,
R

None of the pre-surrender districts and provinces that you mentioned were successor governments.​

That is true though I think you say that to mislead. Post war treaties divided the region. Territories were named and defined by international borders. Upon the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne, these defined territories became successor states.
-------------------------
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.”​

------------------
Palestine was the state to which such territory was transferred and the Palestinians were the citizens of that state as stated in the Treaty of Lausanne and confirmed by local law.

(REFERENCE)

REPORT
BY HIS BRITANNIC MAJESTY'S GOVERNMENT
TO THE COUNCIL OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS
ON THE ADMINISTRATION OF
PALESTINE AND TRANSJORDAN
FOR THE YEAR
1925
SECTION III.
QUESTIONNAIRE OF PERMANENT MANDATES COMMISSION,
WITH BRIEF REPLIES.
I.--JEWISH NATIONAL HOME.​

1.Q. What measures have been taken to place the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the national home of the Jewish people? What are the effects of these measures?

A. The direction and objects of the policy of the Government of Palestine in law, administration and finance are unchanged. The visible results of the policy have been tranquillity, increased Jewish immigration, progress of Jewish agricultural settlement. The expansion of industry has been encouraged by the grant of exemption of certain raw materials from import duty (see [pages ] of this Report).

The regulations under the Immigration Ordinance, 1925, set up a statutory procedure for the introduction of Jewish immigrant labour into Palestine. The Palestinian Citizenship Order in Council, 1925, facilitates the acquisition of Palestinian nationality by persons settling in the country, including those who opted for Palestinian citizenship under the Palestine Legislative Council Election Order in Council, 1922. There was a remarkable development of Jewish Co-operative Societies, constituted principally for building, agricultural and mutual credit purposes. Twenty-six Jewish companies were formed.
​

VI.--NATIONALITY.​

2.Q. Have special provisions been enacted, framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews?

A. Article 5 of the Order facilitates the acquisition of citizenship by Jews who opted therefor under Article 2 of the Palestine Legislative Council Election Order in Council, 1922. The qualifications for naturalization are simple: two years' residence in Palestine out of the three years preceding application, good character, and the declared intention to settle in Palestine; knowledge of Hebrew is accepted under the literacy qualification. In special cases the High Commissioner is empowered to grant naturalization even if the period of residence has not been within the three years preceding application. Special naturalization offices have already been opened in Jerusalem, Haifa and Tiberias; and an officer is visiting the Jewish agricultural settlements in the north to receive applications on the spot.
​

PERMANENT MANDATES COMMISSION
MINUTES
OF THE
NINTH SESSION
Held at Geneva from June 8th to 25th, 1926
including the
REPORT OF THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL
​

11. Rights of Citizenship. -- In this connection, the Waad Leumi complains that the High Commissioner is empowered to withdraw the privilege of citizenship without trial and without appeal.

The Commission is of opinion that the mandatory Power has demonstrated the necessity of conferring this power upon the High Commissioner and it could only have taken this complaint into consideration if cases had been laid before it in which this power had been abused or exercised in an arbitrary manner.
​

(COMMENT)

Being a citizen of the territory to which the Mandate Applies (as in Article 1 of the Palestine Order in Council), is not the same as:

• Being a citizen of an independent and sovereign.
• Being a citizen of a self-governing institution.
​

The demarcation of Palestine (as may be determined by the Allied Powers) may be changed or altered at the discretion of the allied powers.

Again, citizenship has no impact on the matter of independence or sovereignty.

Neither Article 30, or the Citizenship Law alters the fact that, by treaty, the title and rights to the territory of the Allied Powers; and remained so until altered by the Allied Powers, or the Mandate Commission.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Let not forget what we were talking about in this exchange; wchich started with your Post #113. We were talking about proving the accuracy of the Palestinian claim:

• Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right, we may not a waiver an inch or any part thereof, no matter what the reasons and circumstances and pressures.
​

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is not correct. You're making the mistake by trying to associate the names.

P F Tinmore, et al,

You missed the intention again. And you've stepped around the discussion. Article 30 does not apply to the Mandate for Lebanon or the Mandate for Palestine; as they were both segments of multiple Sanjuks (NOT STATES) of the former Ottoman Empire.

What does all that have to do with my post?

​

Yes there was.
-------------------------
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.”​

-------------------------
And being the citizens of Palestine it was their prerogative to determine immigration.

(COMMENT)

Actually NOT!

The Treaty of Lausanne had to cover a multitude of territorial issues over a vast number of territories. Article 30, like all the Articles of the Treaty, was not exclusively applicable to all.

Well before the Treaty of Lausanne (years), the Allied Powers had determined and made it known their intention to create special conditions for the territory (yet to be determined) of Palestine. Well before the treaty, the Allied Powers had determined the need for and the placement of a Jewish National Home; as well as the need for special consideration to unique immigration and citizenship requirements to bring the immigrants up in the same status as the inhabitants. Just as the Treaty was (generally) written to meet the entire landscape beyonds the boundaries of Turkey, the Mandate for Palestine contained the unique aspects and instructions to fulfill the intentions of the Allied Powers.

In 1916 Britain and France signed the Sykes-Picot Agreement, which divided the Arab region into Zones of Influence (ZoI). Lebanon and Syria were assigned to France, Jordan and Iraq to Britain and Palestine was to be internationalized. THAT DID NOT HAPPEN. In 1922 The Council of the League of Nations issued a Mandate for Palestine. The Mandate was in favor of the establishment for the Jewish people a homeland in Palestine.
​

Article 30 applied specifically to "States" (including Vassal or Tributary) detached from Turkey (The Balkan States, Egypt, Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Macedonia, Hungary, as examples) (Ottoman Partitions The Kingdoms of Nejd and Hejaz was formed, which in 1932 became the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, examples of States NOT covered by the Treaty of Lausanne). But in the Middle East, the Ottoman Territorial Administrations was broken down slightly difference into Sanjuks (Districts) and Vilayets (Provinces). But NOT States or self governing regions [Vassal (tribal) or Tributary (self-governing paying tribute)].... In the Middle East, the two Vilayets that include, what we consider today as Palestine, were the Vilayet of Beirut (including the Sanjuks of Latakia, Tripoli, Lebanon, Beirut, Acre, Balqa, Jerusalem), and the Vilayet of Syria (including the Sanjuks of Hama, Damascus, Hauran, and Maan). As I've mentioned many times before, the Region of Palestine was neither a State (Independent, Vassal or Tributary) or a Political Subdivision (Sanjuk or Vilayet). THUS, Article 30 is not applicable to the issue under discussion.

The Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic renounces title and right to the Region we call Palestine, which was then was transferred to the Mandatory for administration and disposition under Article 16 (the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned). Neither The Treaty of Lausanne or the Mandate for Palestine granted or promised the inhabitants any particular future or any future authority, or any specific territory (within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers). While that may have been an intention for most of the detached territories, the intention for Palestine was outlined in the Mandate.

Most Respectfully,
R

But in the Middle East, the Ottoman Territorial Administrations was broken down slightly difference into Sanjuks (Districts) and Vilayets (Provinces). But NOT States or self governing regions...​

Lebanon, Syria, Transjordan, and Palestine were all considered to be successor states.

(COMMENT)

The current State of Lebanon was a composite of the southern part of the Tripoli Sanjuk, the Sanjuk of Lebanon, and the northern portion of the Acre Sanjuk.

The State of Syria was a composite of the Sanjuk of Latakia, most of the Vilayet of Aleppo, the Sanjuk of Hama, and the Sanjuk of Damascus, the State of Transjordan was a composite of the Sanjuks Maan and Hauran. Transjordan was actually set up after the Unconditional Mudor Armistice of 1918; with Hashemite Emir Faisal set up an independent government in Damascus. Although for political reasons tied directly to the Syke-Picot Agreement, the ZoI of Damascus revered back to French control.

None of the pre-surrender districts and provinces that you mentioned were successor governments. They were political subdivisions under the responsible "Divan" (a council that advised the Sultan). At time in the history of the Ottoman Empire, the region had Eyalets ( Beylerbeys ), the next order of government above a Vilayet.

I think you are grasping at straws.

And again I remind you that, the title and rights were renounced to the Allied Powers and the Mandatories selected by the Allied Powers. All rights and titles by treaty = all rights and titles by treaty. There is nothing greater than that in terms of independence and sovereignty.

While I agree in part with some of what our friend "montelatici" has cited, the Article 3 which he sites is a (French) Mandate Article, derivative of the substance behind the treaty.

Most Respectfully,
R

None of the pre-surrender districts and provinces that you mentioned were successor governments.​

That is true though I think you say that to mislead. Post war treaties divided the region. Territories were named and defined by international borders. Upon the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne, these defined territories became successor states.
-------------------------
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.”​

------------------
Palestine was the state to which such territory was transferred and the Palestinians were the citizens of that state as stated in the Treaty of Lausanne and confirmed by local law.

(REFERENCE)

REPORT
BY HIS BRITANNIC MAJESTY'S GOVERNMENT
TO THE COUNCIL OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS
ON THE ADMINISTRATION OF
PALESTINE AND TRANSJORDAN
FOR THE YEAR
1925
SECTION III.
QUESTIONNAIRE OF PERMANENT MANDATES COMMISSION,
WITH BRIEF REPLIES.
I.--JEWISH NATIONAL HOME.​

1.Q. What measures have been taken to place the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the national home of the Jewish people? What are the effects of these measures?

A. The direction and objects of the policy of the Government of Palestine in law, administration and finance are unchanged. The visible results of the policy have been tranquillity, increased Jewish immigration, progress of Jewish agricultural settlement. The expansion of industry has been encouraged by the grant of exemption of certain raw materials from import duty (see [pages ] of this Report).

The regulations under the Immigration Ordinance, 1925, set up a statutory procedure for the introduction of Jewish immigrant labour into Palestine. The Palestinian Citizenship Order in Council, 1925, facilitates the acquisition of Palestinian nationality by persons settling in the country, including those who opted for Palestinian citizenship under the Palestine Legislative Council Election Order in Council, 1922. There was a remarkable development of Jewish Co-operative Societies, constituted principally for building, agricultural and mutual credit purposes. Twenty-six Jewish companies were formed.
​

VI.--NATIONALITY.​

2.Q. Have special provisions been enacted, framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews?

A. Article 5 of the Order facilitates the acquisition of citizenship by Jews who opted therefor under Article 2 of the Palestine Legislative Council Election Order in Council, 1922. The qualifications for naturalization are simple: two years' residence in Palestine out of the three years preceding application, good character, and the declared intention to settle in Palestine; knowledge of Hebrew is accepted under the literacy qualification. In special cases the High Commissioner is empowered to grant naturalization even if the period of residence has not been within the three years preceding application. Special naturalization offices have already been opened in Jerusalem, Haifa and Tiberias; and an officer is visiting the Jewish agricultural settlements in the north to receive applications on the spot.
​

PERMANENT MANDATES COMMISSION
MINUTES
OF THE
NINTH SESSION
Held at Geneva from June 8th to 25th, 1926
including the
REPORT OF THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL
​

11. Rights of Citizenship. -- In this connection, the Waad Leumi complains that the High Commissioner is empowered to withdraw the privilege of citizenship without trial and without appeal.

The Commission is of opinion that the mandatory Power has demonstrated the necessity of conferring this power upon the High Commissioner and it could only have taken this complaint into consideration if cases had been laid before it in which this power had been abused or exercised in an arbitrary manner.
​

(COMMENT)

Being a citizen of the territory to which the Mandate Applies (as in Article 1 of the Palestine Order in Council), is not the same as:

• Being a citizen of an independent and sovereign.
• Being a citizen of a self-governing institution.
​

The demarcation of Palestine (as may be determined by the Allied Powers) may be changed or altered at the discretion of the allied powers.

Again, citizenship has no impact on the matter of independence or sovereignty.

Neither Article 30, or the Citizenship Law alters the fact that, by treaty, the title and rights to the territory of the Allied Powers; and remained so until altered by the Allied Powers, or the Mandate Commission.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, but the Palestinian's statement is the land of Palestine after the Mandate failed and left. The confirmation of this defined territory can be found in the 1949 UN armistice agreements.

 

[Phoenall]

9/11 inside job, montelatici, et al,

Oh, more whining.

The fact is, Israel has the most powerful terrorist organization in the world, the IDF, and has killed 1000s more times the innocent civilians than any Palestinian national liberation has or will ever kill.

(COMMENT)

And I suppose that the Arab Palestinian is clean as the driven snow; 99 and 44 one-hundredths percent pure. And the Arab Palestinians never attacked the Olympics, and the Palestinians never killed a single American, and the Palestinians never hijacked a single plane or committed piracy on the high seas. I suppose that the Palestinians never committed a suicide bombing in against a purely civilian target, never attacked a school bus or the infirm or disabled. And I suppose that the Arab Palestinian did not fire a single rocket indiscriminately into Israel.

I suppose that all these civilians were located away from Arab Palestinian paramilitary activities. I suppose that there were not paramilitary targets in close proximity to densely populated civilian vicinities.

The lack of military prowess and the ineffectiveness of paramilitary activities and terrorist operations is no excuse. The Arab Palestinian Terrorist have said many times that they would kill more Israeli civilians if they could. It has only been within the last week that we discussed how the barbaric and bloodthirsty Arab Palestinians want to legitimize the Arabs in killing civilians.

If the international community places a moratorium on the prohibition against directly targeting the civilian population (as suggested), that would make your whole argument here invalid and immaterial. That would place the Arab Palestinian Population in great peril; not that the Israelis would intentionally target innocent civilians.

Most Respectfully,
R

Such Myopic Errant Nonsense from you Rocco

More deflection and no content posting. Cant you keep on topic and at least mention the subject matter.

So are the candidates for the US president making the Palestine/Israel problem an election issue ?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Let not forget what we were talking about in this exchange; wchich started with your Post #113. We were talking about proving the accuracy of the Palestinian claim:

• Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right, we may not a waiver an inch or any part thereof, no matter what the reasons and circumstances and pressures.
​

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is not correct. You're making the mistake by trying to associate the names.

P F Tinmore, et al,

You missed the intention again. And you've stepped around the discussion. Article 30 does not apply to the Mandate for Lebanon or the Mandate for Palestine; as they were both segments of multiple Sanjuks (NOT STATES) of the former Ottoman Empire.

(COMMENT)

Actually NOT!

The Treaty of Lausanne had to cover a multitude of territorial issues over a vast number of territories. Article 30, like all the Articles of the Treaty, was not exclusively applicable to all.

Well before the Treaty of Lausanne (years), the Allied Powers had determined and made it known their intention to create special conditions for the territory (yet to be determined) of Palestine. Well before the treaty, the Allied Powers had determined the need for and the placement of a Jewish National Home; as well as the need for special consideration to unique immigration and citizenship requirements to bring the immigrants up in the same status as the inhabitants. Just as the Treaty was (generally) written to meet the entire landscape beyonds the boundaries of Turkey, the Mandate for Palestine contained the unique aspects and instructions to fulfill the intentions of the Allied Powers.

In 1916 Britain and France signed the Sykes-Picot Agreement, which divided the Arab region into Zones of Influence (ZoI). Lebanon and Syria were assigned to France, Jordan and Iraq to Britain and Palestine was to be internationalized. THAT DID NOT HAPPEN. In 1922 The Council of the League of Nations issued a Mandate for Palestine. The Mandate was in favor of the establishment for the Jewish people a homeland in Palestine.
​

Article 30 applied specifically to "States" (including Vassal or Tributary) detached from Turkey (The Balkan States, Egypt, Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Macedonia, Hungary, as examples) (Ottoman Partitions The Kingdoms of Nejd and Hejaz was formed, which in 1932 became the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, examples of States NOT covered by the Treaty of Lausanne). But in the Middle East, the Ottoman Territorial Administrations was broken down slightly difference into Sanjuks (Districts) and Vilayets (Provinces). But NOT States or self governing regions [Vassal (tribal) or Tributary (self-governing paying tribute)].... In the Middle East, the two Vilayets that include, what we consider today as Palestine, were the Vilayet of Beirut (including the Sanjuks of Latakia, Tripoli, Lebanon, Beirut, Acre, Balqa, Jerusalem), and the Vilayet of Syria (including the Sanjuks of Hama, Damascus, Hauran, and Maan). As I've mentioned many times before, the Region of Palestine was neither a State (Independent, Vassal or Tributary) or a Political Subdivision (Sanjuk or Vilayet). THUS, Article 30 is not applicable to the issue under discussion.

The Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic renounces title and right to the Region we call Palestine, which was then was transferred to the Mandatory for administration and disposition under Article 16 (the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned). Neither The Treaty of Lausanne or the Mandate for Palestine granted or promised the inhabitants any particular future or any future authority, or any specific territory (within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers). While that may have been an intention for most of the detached territories, the intention for Palestine was outlined in the Mandate.

Most Respectfully,
R

But in the Middle East, the Ottoman Territorial Administrations was broken down slightly difference into Sanjuks (Districts) and Vilayets (Provinces). But NOT States or self governing regions...​

Lebanon, Syria, Transjordan, and Palestine were all considered to be successor states.

(COMMENT)

The current State of Lebanon was a composite of the southern part of the Tripoli Sanjuk, the Sanjuk of Lebanon, and the northern portion of the Acre Sanjuk.

The State of Syria was a composite of the Sanjuk of Latakia, most of the Vilayet of Aleppo, the Sanjuk of Hama, and the Sanjuk of Damascus, the State of Transjordan was a composite of the Sanjuks Maan and Hauran. Transjordan was actually set up after the Unconditional Mudor Armistice of 1918; with Hashemite Emir Faisal set up an independent government in Damascus. Although for political reasons tied directly to the Syke-Picot Agreement, the ZoI of Damascus revered back to French control.

None of the pre-surrender districts and provinces that you mentioned were successor governments. They were political subdivisions under the responsible "Divan" (a council that advised the Sultan). At time in the history of the Ottoman Empire, the region had Eyalets ( Beylerbeys ), the next order of government above a Vilayet.

I think you are grasping at straws.

And again I remind you that, the title and rights were renounced to the Allied Powers and the Mandatories selected by the Allied Powers. All rights and titles by treaty = all rights and titles by treaty. There is nothing greater than that in terms of independence and sovereignty.

While I agree in part with some of what our friend "montelatici" has cited, the Article 3 which he sites is a (French) Mandate Article, derivative of the substance behind the treaty.

Most Respectfully,
R

None of the pre-surrender districts and provinces that you mentioned were successor governments.​

That is true though I think you say that to mislead. Post war treaties divided the region. Territories were named and defined by international borders. Upon the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne, these defined territories became successor states.
-------------------------
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.”​

------------------
Palestine was the state to which such territory was transferred and the Palestinians were the citizens of that state as stated in the Treaty of Lausanne and confirmed by local law.

(REFERENCE)

REPORT
BY HIS BRITANNIC MAJESTY'S GOVERNMENT
TO THE COUNCIL OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS
ON THE ADMINISTRATION OF
PALESTINE AND TRANSJORDAN
FOR THE YEAR
1925
SECTION III.
QUESTIONNAIRE OF PERMANENT MANDATES COMMISSION,
WITH BRIEF REPLIES.
I.--JEWISH NATIONAL HOME.​

1.Q. What measures have been taken to place the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the national home of the Jewish people? What are the effects of these measures?

A. The direction and objects of the policy of the Government of Palestine in law, administration and finance are unchanged. The visible results of the policy have been tranquillity, increased Jewish immigration, progress of Jewish agricultural settlement. The expansion of industry has been encouraged by the grant of exemption of certain raw materials from import duty (see [pages ] of this Report).

The regulations under the Immigration Ordinance, 1925, set up a statutory procedure for the introduction of Jewish immigrant labour into Palestine. The Palestinian Citizenship Order in Council, 1925, facilitates the acquisition of Palestinian nationality by persons settling in the country, including those who opted for Palestinian citizenship under the Palestine Legislative Council Election Order in Council, 1922. There was a remarkable development of Jewish Co-operative Societies, constituted principally for building, agricultural and mutual credit purposes. Twenty-six Jewish companies were formed.
​

VI.--NATIONALITY.​

2.Q. Have special provisions been enacted, framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews?

A. Article 5 of the Order facilitates the acquisition of citizenship by Jews who opted therefor under Article 2 of the Palestine Legislative Council Election Order in Council, 1922. The qualifications for naturalization are simple: two years' residence in Palestine out of the three years preceding application, good character, and the declared intention to settle in Palestine; knowledge of Hebrew is accepted under the literacy qualification. In special cases the High Commissioner is empowered to grant naturalization even if the period of residence has not been within the three years preceding application. Special naturalization offices have already been opened in Jerusalem, Haifa and Tiberias; and an officer is visiting the Jewish agricultural settlements in the north to receive applications on the spot.
​

PERMANENT MANDATES COMMISSION
MINUTES
OF THE
NINTH SESSION
Held at Geneva from June 8th to 25th, 1926
including the
REPORT OF THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL
​

11. Rights of Citizenship. -- In this connection, the Waad Leumi complains that the High Commissioner is empowered to withdraw the privilege of citizenship without trial and without appeal.

The Commission is of opinion that the mandatory Power has demonstrated the necessity of conferring this power upon the High Commissioner and it could only have taken this complaint into consideration if cases had been laid before it in which this power had been abused or exercised in an arbitrary manner.
​

(COMMENT)

Being a citizen of the territory to which the Mandate Applies (as in Article 1 of the Palestine Order in Council), is not the same as:

• Being a citizen of an independent and sovereign.
• Being a citizen of a self-governing institution.
​

The demarcation of Palestine (as may be determined by the Allied Powers) may be changed or altered at the discretion of the allied powers.

Again, citizenship has no impact on the matter of independence or sovereignty.

Neither Article 30, or the Citizenship Law alters the fact that, by treaty, the title and rights to the territory of the Allied Powers; and remained so until altered by the Allied Powers, or the Mandate Commission.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, but the Palestinian's statement is the land of Palestine after the Mandate failed and left. The confirmation of this defined territory can be found in the 1949 UN armistice agreements.

The MANDATE never left it was the MANDATORY that handed over the reigns to the UN.

What is so hard for you to understand about that. You act like some semi literate migrant when you confuse the two entities all the time.



No it cant as that delimeates the MANDATE OF PALESTINE not the nation of Palestine. As proven to you thousands of times

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is not correct. You're making the mistake by trying to associate the names.

P F Tinmore, et al,

You missed the intention again. And you've stepped around the discussion. Article 30 does not apply to the Mandate for Lebanon or the Mandate for Palestine; as they were both segments of multiple Sanjuks (NOT STATES) of the former Ottoman Empire.

(COMMENT)

Actually NOT!

The Treaty of Lausanne had to cover a multitude of territorial issues over a vast number of territories. Article 30, like all the Articles of the Treaty, was not exclusively applicable to all.

Well before the Treaty of Lausanne (years), the Allied Powers had determined and made it known their intention to create special conditions for the territory (yet to be determined) of Palestine. Well before the treaty, the Allied Powers had determined the need for and the placement of a Jewish National Home; as well as the need for special consideration to unique immigration and citizenship requirements to bring the immigrants up in the same status as the inhabitants. Just as the Treaty was (generally) written to meet the entire landscape beyonds the boundaries of Turkey, the Mandate for Palestine contained the unique aspects and instructions to fulfill the intentions of the Allied Powers.

In 1916 Britain and France signed the Sykes-Picot Agreement, which divided the Arab region into Zones of Influence (ZoI). Lebanon and Syria were assigned to France, Jordan and Iraq to Britain and Palestine was to be internationalized. THAT DID NOT HAPPEN. In 1922 The Council of the League of Nations issued a Mandate for Palestine. The Mandate was in favor of the establishment for the Jewish people a homeland in Palestine.
​

Article 30 applied specifically to "States" (including Vassal or Tributary) detached from Turkey (The Balkan States, Egypt, Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Macedonia, Hungary, as examples) (Ottoman Partitions The Kingdoms of Nejd and Hejaz was formed, which in 1932 became the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, examples of States NOT covered by the Treaty of Lausanne). But in the Middle East, the Ottoman Territorial Administrations was broken down slightly difference into Sanjuks (Districts) and Vilayets (Provinces). But NOT States or self governing regions [Vassal (tribal) or Tributary (self-governing paying tribute)].... In the Middle East, the two Vilayets that include, what we consider today as Palestine, were the Vilayet of Beirut (including the Sanjuks of Latakia, Tripoli, Lebanon, Beirut, Acre, Balqa, Jerusalem), and the Vilayet of Syria (including the Sanjuks of Hama, Damascus, Hauran, and Maan). As I've mentioned many times before, the Region of Palestine was neither a State (Independent, Vassal or Tributary) or a Political Subdivision (Sanjuk or Vilayet). THUS, Article 30 is not applicable to the issue under discussion.

The Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic renounces title and right to the Region we call Palestine, which was then was transferred to the Mandatory for administration and disposition under Article 16 (the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned). Neither The Treaty of Lausanne or the Mandate for Palestine granted or promised the inhabitants any particular future or any future authority, or any specific territory (within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers). While that may have been an intention for most of the detached territories, the intention for Palestine was outlined in the Mandate.

Most Respectfully,
R

But in the Middle East, the Ottoman Territorial Administrations was broken down slightly difference into Sanjuks (Districts) and Vilayets (Provinces). But NOT States or self governing regions...​

Lebanon, Syria, Transjordan, and Palestine were all considered to be successor states.

(COMMENT)

The current State of Lebanon was a composite of the southern part of the Tripoli Sanjuk, the Sanjuk of Lebanon, and the northern portion of the Acre Sanjuk.

The State of Syria was a composite of the Sanjuk of Latakia, most of the Vilayet of Aleppo, the Sanjuk of Hama, and the Sanjuk of Damascus, the State of Transjordan was a composite of the Sanjuks Maan and Hauran. Transjordan was actually set up after the Unconditional Mudor Armistice of 1918; with Hashemite Emir Faisal set up an independent government in Damascus. Although for political reasons tied directly to the Syke-Picot Agreement, the ZoI of Damascus revered back to French control.

None of the pre-surrender districts and provinces that you mentioned were successor governments. They were political subdivisions under the responsible "Divan" (a council that advised the Sultan). At time in the history of the Ottoman Empire, the region had Eyalets ( Beylerbeys ), the next order of government above a Vilayet.

I think you are grasping at straws.

And again I remind you that, the title and rights were renounced to the Allied Powers and the Mandatories selected by the Allied Powers. All rights and titles by treaty = all rights and titles by treaty. There is nothing greater than that in terms of independence and sovereignty.

While I agree in part with some of what our friend "montelatici" has cited, the Article 3 which he sites is a (French) Mandate Article, derivative of the substance behind the treaty.

Most Respectfully,
R

None of the pre-surrender districts and provinces that you mentioned were successor governments.​

That is true though I think you say that to mislead. Post war treaties divided the region. Territories were named and defined by international borders. Upon the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne, these defined territories became successor states.
-------------------------
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.”​

------------------
Palestine was the state to which such territory was transferred and the Palestinians were the citizens of that state as stated in the Treaty of Lausanne and confirmed by local law.

Try again as what state were they transferred to to become citizens of

The actual wording is citizens of the mandate of Palestine

Are U a Citezen yet

OF what ?

 

[Phoenall]

9/11 inside job, montelatici, et al,

Oh, more whining.

The fact is, Israel has the most powerful terrorist organization in the world, the IDF, and has killed 1000s more times the innocent civilians than any Palestinian national liberation has or will ever kill.

(COMMENT)

And I suppose that the Arab Palestinian is clean as the driven snow; 99 and 44 one-hundredths percent pure. And the Arab Palestinians never attacked the Olympics, and the Palestinians never killed a single American, and the Palestinians never hijacked a single plane or committed piracy on the high seas. I suppose that the Palestinians never committed a suicide bombing in against a purely civilian target, never attacked a school bus or the infirm or disabled. And I suppose that the Arab Palestinian did not fire a single rocket indiscriminately into Israel.

I suppose that all these civilians were located away from Arab Palestinian paramilitary activities. I suppose that there were not paramilitary targets in close proximity to densely populated civilian vicinities.

The lack of military prowess and the ineffectiveness of paramilitary activities and terrorist operations is no excuse. The Arab Palestinian Terrorist have said many times that they would kill more Israeli civilians if they could. It has only been within the last week that we discussed how the barbaric and bloodthirsty Arab Palestinians want to legitimize the Arabs in killing civilians.

If the international community places a moratorium on the prohibition against directly targeting the civilian population (as suggested), that would make your whole argument here invalid and immaterial. That would place the Arab Palestinian Population in great peril; not that the Israelis would intentionally target innocent civilians.

Most Respectfully,
R

Of course the Palestinians are not "as clean as the driven snow" but they are the ones that were driven from their homes and relegated to refugee camps. It is not unnatural for people that have undergone the horrors they have undergone to lash out. The Palestinians, after all, are not behaving any differently than the non-whites in South Africa and Rhodesia, the FLN in Algeria, the Tamils, the IRA, etc., etc. What bothers me are people such as yourself that will not ever admit that the migration of European Jews to Palestine and their success (with the help of the West in general) in evicting the native people and creating a state at the expense of the native people has no bearing on the behavior of the non-Jews (Muslims and Christians) of Palestine.

"...but they are the ones that were driven from their homes and relegated to refugee camps."

I mean, what a shame that the Arabs-Moslem squatters were forced from their homes in 1948 when the failed genocide by the Arab-Moslem armies was begun.

And, I think we can agree that the treatment of the Pal'istanians by the Arab-Moslem world is terrible. Those Pal'istanian internment camps in Jordan and elsewhere in the Arab-Moslem Middle East..., oh, the humanity, (sniff sniff).

Cretin is as CRETIN speaks

And only a full blown cretin would write citizen as you did