Unlikely.
The borders of all those autonomous, sovereign, broadly-recognized polities, and the Mediterranean Sea, did, indeed, run along the edges of the political vacuum and unincorporated region known as Palestine.
I will not Bow!
- Thread starter pbel
- Start date
- Status
Thank you for your feedback.
Clear transition from (1) Ottoman subjects to (2) citizens of the British Mandate to (3) stateless persons. Once the Mandate ended, there was nothing to be a citizen OF. Unless, of course, you had the brains, and the balls, to strike out on your own, seize your moment, and declare a new State, carved from part of the lands associated with that sudden political vacuum, or otherwise secede from such an Imperfect Union.
A vacuum with citizens defined by law. And international borders too.
Interesting legal concept.
It says no such thing as Palestine is not even mentioned, and this is the work of a very biased muslim isn't it who added the term Palestine in his version of the treaty.
What it really said was that those citizens of the ottoman empire that live in the former lands governed by them will take on the citizenship of the new controlling powers. In this case they became British citizens of Palestine.
God it is so easy to rip your arguments apart they are so immature in their simplicity.
Last edited:
RoccoR
Gold Member
Kondor3; Phoenall; P F Tinmore; et al,
Well, I'm not sure this is exactly the right way to interpret the events.
The inhabitants remained the citizen of the Government of Palestine as originally established. The only thing that changed hands was the successor of the government from the UK to the UNPC.
Again, the reason the Arab-Palestinians insist it is not is because they lose their justification for the conflict; and they lose the premise that the sovereignty and right to self-determination was taken from them.
Most Respectfully,
R
Well, I'm not sure this is exactly the right way to interpret the events.
(COMMENT)Clear transition from (1) Ottoman subjects to (2) citizens of the British Mandate to (3) stateless persons. Once the Mandate ended, there was nothing to be a citizen OF. Unless, of course, you had the brains, and the balls, to strike out on your own, seize your moment, and declare a new State, carved from part of the lands associated with that sudden political vacuum, or otherwise secede from such an Imperfect Union.A vacuum with citizens defined by law. And international borders too.
Interesting legal concept.
It says no such thing as Palestine is not even mentioned, and this is the work of a very biased muslim isn't it who added the term Palestine in his version of the treaty.
What it really said was that those citizens of the ottoman empire that live in the former lands governed by them will take on the citizenship of the new controlling powers. In this case they became British citizens of Palestine.
God it is so easy to rip your arguments apart they are so immature in their simplicity.
The inhabitants remained the citizen of the Government of Palestine as originally established. The only thing that changed hands was the successor of the government from the UK to the UNPC.
Again, the reason the Arab-Palestinians insist it is not is because they lose their justification for the conflict; and they lose the premise that the sovereignty and right to self-determination was taken from them.
Most Respectfully,
R
Sorry, Rocco, and I know, in advance, that I am flying in the face of your superior scholarship in such matters, but, sorry, no sale; at least not at first or second glance.
Given that the Jews of Old Palestine declared Statehood, to go into effect at the very instant in time that the Mandate expired...
Given that the Arabs of Old Palestine refused to cooperate with the UNPC or allow it to assume power...
Given that the UNPC never assumed the reins of power nor got beyond the working and planning committee working stage...
Given that the UNPC - as a governing body - never actually set foot on the soil of Old Palestine or any of its constituent Jewish-held or Arab-held parts...
Given that the UNPC itself adjourned sine die, outside the boundaries of Old Palestine, on May 17, 1948, conceding the Realities of the situation, and that it never exercised governmental control of any kind over the region of Old Palestine...
I respectfully submit that a Government on Paper is not a Government in the Real World...
A Polish government in exile continued to exist between September 1939 (the Fall of Poland, at the start of WWII) and December 1990, when Lech Walesa took office as President of Poland, after the Iron Curtain fell...
But after the establishment of the Soviet-controlled government of Poland in the first half of 1945, and recognition of that Soviet-controlled government by the Western Allies, and, subsequently, the world, the Polish government in exile stopped being a governing body de facto or de jure, and quickly transformed into a standing joke in diplomatic circles...
Sadly, the UNPC did not govern a single day of its existence, and adjourned two days after the Israeli declaration of Statehood, left with nothing to do but write a final report to the UN General Assembly and to go home without ever accomplishing a thing...
If the UNPC had stayed in operation and governed the Arab -controlled sections of Old Palestine, then they would have 'had a shot' at being labeled as an actual Government, of an established and widely recognized government-as-reality; the polity which those Arab-Muslim Palestinians could have pointed to as their basis for citizenship...
A government on paper that does not and cannot and will not govern, is, in truth, no government at all...
Taking that to the next logical level, if, indeed, and in truth, there was no government at all, then, the appellation of Stateless Persons makes a great deal of sense, and eventually came to be construed as operative in fact, as well as du jour; rendering them Residents or Inhabitants or Natives, but lacking a viable polity to be Citizens of...
It's the difference between a paper government and a real government...
In the Real World, anyway...
I can see, on paper, how you could pitch the 'Government' idea in the way you did...
Hopefully, you, in turn, can see, in Reality, how one could pitch the Stateless idea in the way that I did...
There's more than one way to skin a Failed Government That Never Was, and I think a excellent yoeman-caliber case may be made for just such an approach...
Or so my own reflections and musing on the subject have directed me, to date...
Respectfully (in honor of your own well-known and collegial tradition)...
Kondor
Last edited:
RoccoR
Gold Member
Kondor3, et al,
First, let me say that in nearly every respect, you are correct in face of facts. Yet there is something more to the drama.
At the time of the Arab Attack in 1948, there were two governments on the ground.
At the end of the Conflict, there was nothing for the UNPC to govern. There was Israel, which through series of battlefield successes, actually controlled more territory that originally allotted, and the two occupation zones [(Jordan in the West Bank)(Egypt in the Gaza Strip)]. The Arab League, as a belligerent external influence) forced out the UNPC by use of force in an attempt to make null and void the implementation of the Resolution.
As I understand the question, the issue is, legally were the Arab Palestinians ever citizens unto their own country or nation. The answer is no! They were either:
But they were never citizens of the State or Nation of Palestine. Just as you rightly point-out that the UNPC had to relinquish any authority or responsibility it had because it could no longer maintain control, so it is with the Palestinians. They had absolutely no control over the territory occupied by the Jordanians and Egyptians. One could say that if anyone denied the Palestinians their right to self-determination, it was the Arab League.
Otherwise, we actually agree.
Most Respectfully,
R
First, let me say that in nearly every respect, you are correct in face of facts. Yet there is something more to the drama.
(COMMENT)
At the time of the Arab Attack in 1948, there were two governments on the ground.
- The newly created Israeli Government.
- The Successor Government (UNPC) over the remainder of the Territory.
At the end of the Conflict, there was nothing for the UNPC to govern. There was Israel, which through series of battlefield successes, actually controlled more territory that originally allotted, and the two occupation zones [(Jordan in the West Bank)(Egypt in the Gaza Strip)]. The Arab League, as a belligerent external influence) forced out the UNPC by use of force in an attempt to make null and void the implementation of the Resolution.
As I understand the question, the issue is, legally were the Arab Palestinians ever citizens unto their own country or nation. The answer is no! They were either:
- Citizens of the State of Israel, within the territory it controlled, at the time of the Armistice.
- Citizens of the former Trusteeship now occupied by the Arab League, at the time of the Armistice.
But they were never citizens of the State or Nation of Palestine. Just as you rightly point-out that the UNPC had to relinquish any authority or responsibility it had because it could no longer maintain control, so it is with the Palestinians. They had absolutely no control over the territory occupied by the Jordanians and Egyptians. One could say that if anyone denied the Palestinians their right to self-determination, it was the Arab League.
Otherwise, we actually agree.
Most Respectfully,
R
Last edited:
Much obliged, Rocco - now that's what I call a good exchange, with some good business done.
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 86,502
- 4,889
- 1,815
You frequently draw your conclusions on false premise.
--------------------
The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the perspective of public international law. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British government pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine.”123 And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality.”124
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.”
84To qualify for Palestinian nationality by virtue of this paragraph, the person had to be: (1) a Turkish subject, or citizen; and (2) habitually resident in Palestine. While Palestinian nationality in accordance with international law (the Treaty of Lausanne) was created, as shown above, on 6 August 1924, the same nationality was effectively created on 1 August 1925 based on domestic law (the Palestinian Citizenship Order).
With regard to nationality of the inhabitants of mandated territories, in general, the Council of the League of Nations adopted the following resolution on 23 April 1923:
“(1) The status of the native inhabitants of a Mandated territory is distinct from that of the nationals of the Mandatory Power....
(2) The native inhabitants of a Mandated territory are not invested with the nationality of the Mandatory Power by means of the protection extended to them…”92
(2) The native inhabitants of a Mandated territory are not invested with the nationality of the Mandatory Power by means of the protection extended to them…”92
Indeependent
Diamond Member
- Nov 19, 2013
- 73,633
- 28,515
- 2,250
Hey TinBrain, keep pulling out more outdated documents from 20+ or 1000+ years before 1948.
Maybe we should go back to the Code of Hammurabi.
Your intellectual dishonesty in is actually quite quaint.
Maybe we should go back to the Code of Hammurabi.
Your intellectual dishonesty in is actually quite quaint.
RoccoR
Gold Member
P F Tinmore; et al,
And you, my friend, frequently misinterpret what you read. And you very often site the wrong applicable directive.
Also, I recognize the notation of your source document: Palestine: Information with Provenance (PIWP database)
Please note that the Palestine Citizenship Order was amended. That is why you don't find it on the UNISPAL listing for 1925.The APPENDIX II. Palestinian Citizenship (Amendment) Order, 1931. AT THE COURT AT BUCKINGHAM PALACE. The 23rd day of July, 1931. "This Order shall be known as the Palestinian Citizenship (Amendment) Order, 1931, and shall be read and construed as one with the Principal Order."
While the 1931 Amendment is still considered the definitive order, the most often used reference is the Constituent factors - Section A, Citizenship --- DEFINITION OF A “REFUGEE” UNDER PARAGRAPH 11 OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION OF 11 DECEMBER 1948 (A/AC.25/W/61 9 April 1951); because it is UN guidance in stead of LoN era material; although it is substantially the same instruction.
The Citizenship Order stipulates "Palestine" --- BUT, what was meant by "Palestine?"
SOURCE:
Palestine Order in Council
[quote="The Palestine Order in Council, 1922.]1. This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."
Next you have to understand the various amendments to that topic finally established three broad categories of Citizenship to the Mandate of Palestine:
Finally, one must understand that, although the Mandatory (UK) was near solely responsible for the establishment of the entity known as Palestine, with the borders they set in place, it was "not a sovereign state," either then - or - at the time the Mandate terminated and handed the successorship back to the UN Trusteeship. Citizenship, like many of the protectorates of the time, derived that status from the protector. This status was made clear in the official pronouncement in 1948.
(CLARIFICATION)
At the time the mandate was terminated, it was made abundantly clear that:
It can hardly be any planner than that. Every argument against this pronouncement is merely an attempt to twist the words to suit the pro-Palestinian Agenda.
Most Respectfully,
R
And you, my friend, frequently misinterpret what you read. And you very often site the wrong applicable directive.
Also, I recognize the notation of your source document: Palestine: Information with Provenance (PIWP database)
Please note that the Palestine Citizenship Order was amended. That is why you don't find it on the UNISPAL listing for 1925.The APPENDIX II. Palestinian Citizenship (Amendment) Order, 1931. AT THE COURT AT BUCKINGHAM PALACE. The 23rd day of July, 1931. "This Order shall be known as the Palestinian Citizenship (Amendment) Order, 1931, and shall be read and construed as one with the Principal Order."
While the 1931 Amendment is still considered the definitive order, the most often used reference is the Constituent factors - Section A, Citizenship --- DEFINITION OF A “REFUGEE” UNDER PARAGRAPH 11 OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION OF 11 DECEMBER 1948 (A/AC.25/W/61 9 April 1951); because it is UN guidance in stead of LoN era material; although it is substantially the same instruction.
(COMMENT)
The Citizenship Order stipulates "Palestine" --- BUT, what was meant by "Palestine?"
SOURCE:
Palestine Order in Council
[quote="The Palestine Order in Council, 1922.]1. This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."
The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.
[/quote]Next you have to understand the various amendments to that topic finally established three broad categories of Citizenship to the Mandate of Palestine:
1. Those who became Palestinian citizens by right, by reason of the fact that they normally resided in that country as at 6 August 1924;
2. Those who exercised their right of option;
3. Those who obtained naturalization.
2. Those who exercised their right of option;
3. Those who obtained naturalization.
Finally, one must understand that, although the Mandatory (UK) was near solely responsible for the establishment of the entity known as Palestine, with the borders they set in place, it was "not a sovereign state," either then - or - at the time the Mandate terminated and handed the successorship back to the UN Trusteeship. Citizenship, like many of the protectorates of the time, derived that status from the protector. This status was made clear in the official pronouncement in 1948.
(CLARIFICATION)
At the time the mandate was terminated, it was made abundantly clear that:
"Palestine is today a legal entity but it is not a sovereign state.
It can hardly be any planner than that. Every argument against this pronouncement is merely an attempt to twist the words to suit the pro-Palestinian Agenda.
Most Respectfully,
R
Last edited:
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 86,502
- 4,889
- 1,815
Next you have to understand the various amendments to that topic finally established three broad categories of Citizenship to the Mandate of Palestine:
1. Those who became Palestinian citizens by right, by reason of the fact that they normally resided in that country as at 6 August 1924;
2. Those who exercised their right of option;
3. Those who obtained naturalization.
2. Those who exercised their right of option;
3. Those who obtained naturalization.
Finally, one must understand that, although the Mandatory (UK) was near solely responsible for the establishment of the entity known as Palestine, with the borders they set in place, it was "not a sovereign state," either then - or - at the time the Mandate terminated and handed the successorship back to the UN Trusteeship. Citizenship, like many of the protectorates of the time, derived that status from the protector. This status was made clear in the official pronouncement in 1948.
(CLARIFICATION)
At the time the mandate was terminated, it was made abundantly clear that:
"Palestine is today a legal entity but it is not a sovereign state.
It can hardly be any planner than that. Every argument against this pronouncement is merely an attempt to twist the words to suit the pro-Palestinian Agenda.
Most Respectfully,
R[/QUOTE]
What are you trying to say?
How does it change what I posted?
RoccoR
Gold Member
P F Tinmore; et al,
You questioned:
Then attempted to use Citizenship rules to substantiate it.
Not only did you use the unamended version of the PCO 1925 Order, you were suggesting that "Palestinian Citizenship" was govern by the Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne. While the treaty had a minor impact on the already existing law, it neither changed the basic orders, nor conferred or implied any special nation or sovereignty on the Palestinians above that bestowed by the High Commissioner.
The Treaty of Lausanne was written to comply with the already existing Mandate and Orders in Council, and not independently or to alter the meaning or intent of those previous directives.
It was "irrelevant" as you are so fond of saying.
Most Respectfully,
R
You questioned:
- As I understand the question, the issue is, legally were the Arab Palestinians ever citizens unto their own country or nation.
- But they were never citizens of the State or Nation of Palestine.
Then attempted to use Citizenship rules to substantiate it.
(COMMENT)
Not only did you use the unamended version of the PCO 1925 Order, you were suggesting that "Palestinian Citizenship" was govern by the Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne. While the treaty had a minor impact on the already existing law, it neither changed the basic orders, nor conferred or implied any special nation or sovereignty on the Palestinians above that bestowed by the High Commissioner.
The Treaty of Lausanne was written to comply with the already existing Mandate and Orders in Council, and not independently or to alter the meaning or intent of those previous directives.
It was "irrelevant" as you are so fond of saying.
Most Respectfully,
R
Next you have to understand the various amendments to that topic finally established three broad categories of Citizenship to the Mandate of Palestine:
1. Those who became Palestinian citizens by right, by reason of the fact that they normally resided in that country as at 6 August 1924;
2. Those who exercised their right of option;
3. Those who obtained naturalization.
2. Those who exercised their right of option;
3. Those who obtained naturalization.
Finally, one must understand that, although the Mandatory (UK) was near solely responsible for the establishment of the entity known as Palestine, with the borders they set in place, it was "not a sovereign state," either then - or - at the time the Mandate terminated and handed the successorship back to the UN Trusteeship. Citizenship, like many of the protectorates of the time, derived that status from the protector. This status was made clear in the official pronouncement in 1948.
(CLARIFICATION)
At the time the mandate was terminated, it was made abundantly clear that:
"Palestine is today a legal entity but it is not a sovereign state.
It can hardly be any planner than that. Every argument against this pronouncement is merely an attempt to twist the words to suit the pro-Palestinian Agenda.
Most Respectfully,
R[/QUOTE]
and you, my friend, frequently misinterpret what you read
Yes !!! I've been trying to tell him this for so long ! He constantly brings up documents/articles that he thinks backs up his statement, but they don't !
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 86,502
- 4,889
- 1,815
I presented evidence showing that they were.
What part of your post specifically says they were not?
Arab-Muslim Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza have been grasping at legal straws for decades in a desperate attempt to legitimize and render their claims superior to those of the Jews of the modern-day State of Israel.
Quite obviously, and just as embarrassingly, these same Arab-Muslim Palestinians lean far too heavily upon old imperial statute and treaty text in order to invent and market and reinforce their claims in ways never anticipated nor intended by those drafting or ratifying those texts.
This is a futile exercise in time-travel, attempting to invent or reinterpret modern-day relevancy (in the form of a definition of competency or jurisdiction) for such texts (and issuing authorities) where none exists, de facto nor de jure.
The futility of the exercise is compounded by the concept of operative force. Such texts no longer carry the weight and authority of operative law in the Real World which we all inhabit.
It is understandable that the 'underdog' in this conflict (the Arab-Muslim Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza and their sympathizers and supporters) would attempt to convince others that these texts are relevant or operative, in light of the idea that they have little else remaining to them to cling to or to utilize as a basis for their stale, obsolete, set-aside claims, but their dearth of operative legal 'ammunition' does not diminish that futility.
Most people outside their Internal Camp 'hear' the arguments; it's just that most people outside their Internal Camp have long-since set aside those arguments as clumsily and malevolently contrived, stretching credibility to the breaking point, and entirely insufficient for the purposes they have in mind; never mind impractical and no longer operative.
Despite my heavy bias in favor of Israel, I find these doomed legal machinations and gyrations on the part of the Palestinians to be simultaneously wildly amusing and tragically sad and pathetic.
Last edited:
And that's the problem. You THINK you provided evidence for it, but really, you didn't
Victory67
Rookie
- Feb 7, 2014
- 1,757
- 35
- 0
- Banned
- #2,017
We all know how this will end.
Israel, in an attempt to get on the good side of the international community and to avoid most legal action, will withdraw to the Seperation Barrier while leaving a military force in the Jorday Valley.
They built this barrier as a Plan B border in case peace talks prove fruitless.
Will they consider this their final border? Probably not. But who knows.
Israel, in an attempt to get on the good side of the international community and to avoid most legal action, will withdraw to the Seperation Barrier while leaving a military force in the Jorday Valley.
They built this barrier as a Plan B border in case peace talks prove fruitless.
Will they consider this their final border? Probably not. But who knows.
So at what date prior to the start of the treaty of Lausanne did Palestine become a state. When did its inhabitants declare they were independent of the ottoman empire and would be known as the state of Palestine. Because that is what would need to happen before the inhabitants became Palestinian citizens in their own right.
At no time is Palestine or Palestinian citizen mentioned in the treaty of Lausanne as no such thing existed. You have repeatedly ignored the question of when, what and where and keep posting the biased report of an islamonazi as if it was International law, even after it was deemed inadmissible by all his peers. Under the mandate the inhabitants of Palestine became British citizens of Palestine as said in the mandate which precedes the treaty of Lausanne which only ratified the mandates words.
Now try and produce an unbiased, truthful and corroborated link to show Palestine had been incorporated as a nation prior to 1988.
What are you trying to say?
How does it change what I posted?[/QUOTE]
That your source is biased and based on untruths and fabrication. It does not change what you post just the meaning of what you post. So instead of being a foregone conclusion it becomes a fantasy world that never existed. Once you understand this you become better informed on the reality that Palestine was never a valid nation until 1988.
But if that evidence is basically flawed then it is not evidence but personal opinion, and therein lies the problem. You take one persons written testimony as factual without cross checking his sources. When we do this we find that he has manipulated the accounts to include the term's Palestine and Palestinian were they never existed. In other cases he has actually LIED OPENLY about the content of treaties to support his POV.
There is sufficient evidence to show that the arab muslims never were Palestinian citizens as no state of Palestine ever existed until 1988.
Unless you can produce a treaty signed by the leaders of Palestine with an appended map showing its borders in the legend. No such treaty or map exists anywhere in the world so you may as well stop looking.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
New Topics
-
-
-
-
President Trump's Speech On Iran Offered Hope The War Will End Soon?
- Started by JimofPennsylvan
- Replies: 9
