I will not Bow!

[toastman]

Name one.

Lets start off with your "Israel has no borders" claim LOL !

Then there's what Rocco just responded to you

We don't have the background established to prove that Israel does have borders.

Israel claims that it got Palestine's borders from Egypt and Jordan. I think there is a problem with legitimacy.

Again, it is not Israel who claims these borders. The borders were created through U.N treaties. Nowhere on those treaties does it say Israel claims them.
What you are saying is blowing smoke.

A/50/73-S/1995/83 of 27 January 1995


The international boundary between Israel and Jordan is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I(a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and co-ordinates specified therein.

2. The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure and recognised international boundary between Israel and Jordan, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.

3. The parties recognise the international boundary, as well as each other's territory, territorial waters and airspace, as inviolable, and will respect and comply with them.

It doesn't get clearer than that.

 

[toastman]

PF Tinemore, et al,

There was no Palestine (State of) until December 1988.

Where was that addressed in Rocco's post?

(COMMENT)

I provided the international boundaries pertaining to the Mandates, as each country achieved independence and sovereignty. There was no such State of Palestine, and I cannot provide you the proof of something that does not exist.

The State of Palestine was created (November 1988).

Most Respectfully,
R

But I have already posted maps and documents showing Palestine's international borders.

You can't refute that with merely say so or a lot of smoke.

Huh? What are you saying ? Read his post again

 

[Phoenall]

Name one.

Lets start off with your "Israel has no borders" claim LOL !

Then there's what Rocco just responded to you

We don't have the background established to prove that Israel does have borders.

Israel claims that it got Palestine's borders from Egypt and Jordan. I think there is a problem with legitimacy.

WRONG as Israel claims it has legally recognised borders with Egypt and Jordan through mutual agreement and lasting peace, it is just that the borders follow the partition plan borders closely. I posted a link and a map that showed these borders to be in existence

 

[Phoenall]

OK. let's start at the top.



Where was that addressed in Rocco's post?

He's addressed that point many many times, you just choose to ignore it.

Read his last post again, the one you claimed where he was grasping at straws

But you cannot tell me what part addressed this question. I asked where, not if it was. You did not answer my question.

Try the opening lines, or cant you understand what they are saying

 

[P F Tinmore]

How could they when there was no nation of Palestine, and the nations that took over were Britain and France. Even the passports for the residents of the British mandate for Palestine said they were British subjects.

Henceforth, Palestinian nationality was first founded, according to international law, on 6 August 1924. And “treaty nationality in Palestine runs from that date.”139 The Treaty of Lausanne had transformed the de facto status of Palestinian nationality into de jure existence from the angle of international law.140 Meanwhile, the Ottoman Empire ceased to exist.141 Likewise, on 6 August 1924, for the first time ever, international law certified the birth of the ‘Palestinian people’ as distinct from all other peoples.

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel

Post something that proves otherwise.

From your link.


During this period Palestine was first placed under military rule and then under civil administration. From 9 December 1917 (when the province of Jerusalem was occupied by the British army as part of World War I in which Britain and Turkey were enemies) until the adoption of the Palestine Mandate on 24 July 1922 by the Council of the League of Nations, the international legal status of the country remained undetermined. As a result, the nationality of Palestine inhabitants, like that of the inhabitants of other ex-Ottoman territories at the time, remained similarly undetermined


Britain’s occupation did not alter, in law, the international status of Palestine as an occupied Turkish territory. The allied powers meanwhile gathered in San Remo, Italy, to discuss a deal with Turkey and determine the future of Palestine (then including Trans-Jordan), along with Iraq and Syria (then including Lebanon).


As the unilaterally declared mandate had no international legal effect, Palestine remained, at least nominally, an Ottoman territory. Britain itself accepted this international legal position


In addition to being Ottoman citizens on the basis of the international law of state succession, Palestine’s inhabitants continued at the same time to be Ottomans in accordance with the 1869 Ottoman Nationality Law. The ongoing validity of the 1869 Law was part of the general application of Ottoman laws in Palestine.

Such validity of Ottoman nationality at the time can be explained by the general rule in international law that occupation or conquest does not provide title to the occupying power over the occupied territory.


Although the inhabitants of Palestine remained Ottoman citizens according to international law, in practice they started to be gradually regarded as Palestinians ( take note this was not a legally binding change of nationality )

As occupying power, Britain had become responsible for the international relations of Palestine and for protecting its inhabitants abroad.44 Britain, as such, found itself compelled to take certain measures to regulate the inhabitants’ nationality. To this end, the government of Palestine, which was the authority established by Britain to administrate the country, issued provisional nationality certificates to Ottoman residents in Palestine; granted Palestinian passports and travel documents; extended diplomatic protection to those inhabitants residing and travelling abroad; and made a clear distinction between citizens and foreigners regarding the admission into Palestine as well as political and residence rights. ‘Palestinian’ and ‘Palestinian citizen’ terms were routinely employed.45


Shortly after replacing the military order by a civil administration, a preliminary system of Palestinian passports and travel documents was set up in August 1920 by the Palestine Passport Regulations
In order, apparently, to be applicable to all residents of the country (natives, migrants, stateless persons, refugees) the Passport Regulations employed the term ‘inhabitant of Palestine’ rather than ‘Palestinian citizen


Palestinian nationality existed despite the lack of comprehensive legislative regulation..

So no legally recognised Palestinian nationality, just a British one that granted protected Palestinians the same consular rights as say Indians and Jamaicans

Although the inhabitants of Palestine remained Ottoman citizens according to international law,...

That is true for Palestine and all of the other countries in the region. As long as the Ottoman Empire still legally existed their nationality remained Ottoman.

However, when the Ottoman Empire ceased to exist on August 6, 1922 their de facto nationality status became de jure.

Henceforth, Palestinian nationality was first founded, according to international law, on 6 August 1924. And “treaty nationality in Palestine runs from that date.”139 The Treaty of Lausanne had transformed the de facto status of Palestinian nationality into de jure existence from the angle of international law.140 Meanwhile, the Ottoman Empire ceased to exist.141 Likewise, on 6 August 1924, for the first time ever, international law certified the birth of the ‘Palestinian people’ as distinct from all other peoples.

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel

 

[Phoenall]

Could you prove that statement like a link or something?

I already have done but you chose to ignore the borders mutually agreed with Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon and claimed that they showed the borders of Palestine. Who negotiated the borders for Palestine when there was no legal representation of any nation of Palestine, who did Egypt Jordan Syria and Israel negotiate the borders with ?

See un res 242 for the explanation as to why Palestine could not have any borders

Israel claims Palestine's borders without negotiating with the Palestinians.

Quote the passage of resolution 242 that confirms your claim.

Read it and find on instance of Palestine being mentioned, that is why it cant have any borders as it was a non-entity

 

[RoccoR]

PF Tinmore, et al,

OK, let's try this again, in another way.

All that is irrelevant. You are getting the procedures out or order.

(COMMENT)

What is out of order?

Palestine's borders were defined by international, post war treaties.

(COMMENT)

As to be determined by the Allied Powers and the Mandatory.

When the Ottoman Empire officially came to an end on August 6, 1924 those became the recognized international borders of Palestine.

(COMMENT)

There were no "recognized borders" for Palestine. There were recognized boundaries for the Mandates.

All of the people whose normal residence was inside those borders at that time became Palestinian nationals with Palestinian citizenship.

(COMMENT)

Again nationalization and citizenship laws were established through the Administration of the Mandate in effect since 1922, not 1924.

As a nation of people inside a defined territory they had the inherent right to self determination without external interference.

(COMMENT)

Any party outside the League of Nations (UN as the successor), and the Mandatory was an "external interference."

The things you mentioned are products of exercising the right to self determination not prerequisites.

(COMMENT)

The "right of self-determination" was truncated by Article 22 of the Covenant.

External interference to the right to self determination is a crime under international law.

(COMMENT)

That is correct! The interference of the Arab Higher Committee and the Arab League, was illegal.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

PF Tinemore, et al,

There was no Palestine (State of) until December 1988.

Where was that addressed in Rocco's post?

(COMMENT)

I provided the international boundaries pertaining to the Mandates, as each country achieved independence and sovereignty. There was no such State of Palestine, and I cannot provide you the proof of something that does not exist.

The State of Palestine was created (November 1988).

Most Respectfully,
R

But I have already posted maps and documents showing Palestine's international borders.

You can't refute that with merely say so or a lot of smoke.

NO YOU HAVE NOT all you have shown is the International borders of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. They are not the borders of Palestine as Palestine is a non-entity

 

[P F Tinmore]

PF Tinmore, et al,

What are you talking about?

PF Tinemore, et al,

There was no Palestine (State of) until December 1988.


(COMMENT)

I provided the international boundaries pertaining to the Mandates, as each country achieved independence and sovereignty. There was no such State of Palestine, and I cannot provide you the proof of something that does not exist.

The State of Palestine was created (November 1988).

Most Respectfully,
R

But I have already posted maps and documents showing Palestine's international borders.

You can't refute that with merely say so or a lot of smoke.

(COMMENT)

I have never posted any information on a pre-1988 State of Palestine; let alone a map.

I may have posted regional maps and mandate maps, but no State Map.

Most Respectfully,
R

I didn't say you. I said me.

Mandates have no land or borders. How can they have maps?

 

[Phoenall]

Post something that proves otherwise.

From your link.


During this period Palestine was first placed under military rule and then under civil administration. From 9 December 1917 (when the province of Jerusalem was occupied by the British army as part of World War I in which Britain and Turkey were enemies) until the adoption of the Palestine Mandate on 24 July 1922 by the Council of the League of Nations, the international legal status of the country remained undetermined. As a result, the nationality of Palestine inhabitants, like that of the inhabitants of other ex-Ottoman territories at the time, remained similarly undetermined


Britain’s occupation did not alter, in law, the international status of Palestine as an occupied Turkish territory. The allied powers meanwhile gathered in San Remo, Italy, to discuss a deal with Turkey and determine the future of Palestine (then including Trans-Jordan), along with Iraq and Syria (then including Lebanon).


As the unilaterally declared mandate had no international legal effect, Palestine remained, at least nominally, an Ottoman territory. Britain itself accepted this international legal position


In addition to being Ottoman citizens on the basis of the international law of state succession, Palestine’s inhabitants continued at the same time to be Ottomans in accordance with the 1869 Ottoman Nationality Law. The ongoing validity of the 1869 Law was part of the general application of Ottoman laws in Palestine.

Such validity of Ottoman nationality at the time can be explained by the general rule in international law that occupation or conquest does not provide title to the occupying power over the occupied territory.


Although the inhabitants of Palestine remained Ottoman citizens according to international law, in practice they started to be gradually regarded as Palestinians ( take note this was not a legally binding change of nationality )

As occupying power, Britain had become responsible for the international relations of Palestine and for protecting its inhabitants abroad.44 Britain, as such, found itself compelled to take certain measures to regulate the inhabitants’ nationality. To this end, the government of Palestine, which was the authority established by Britain to administrate the country, issued provisional nationality certificates to Ottoman residents in Palestine; granted Palestinian passports and travel documents; extended diplomatic protection to those inhabitants residing and travelling abroad; and made a clear distinction between citizens and foreigners regarding the admission into Palestine as well as political and residence rights. ‘Palestinian’ and ‘Palestinian citizen’ terms were routinely employed.45


Shortly after replacing the military order by a civil administration, a preliminary system of Palestinian passports and travel documents was set up in August 1920 by the Palestine Passport Regulations
In order, apparently, to be applicable to all residents of the country (natives, migrants, stateless persons, refugees) the Passport Regulations employed the term ‘inhabitant of Palestine’ rather than ‘Palestinian citizen


Palestinian nationality existed despite the lack of comprehensive legislative regulation..

So no legally recognised Palestinian nationality, just a British one that granted protected Palestinians the same consular rights as say Indians and Jamaicans

Although the inhabitants of Palestine remained Ottoman citizens according to international law,...

That is true for Palestine and all of the other countries in the region. As long as the Ottoman Empire still legally existed their nationality remained Ottoman.

However, when the Ottoman Empire ceased to exist on August 6, 1922 their de facto nationality status became de jure.

Henceforth, Palestinian nationality was first founded, according to international law, on 6 August 1924. And “treaty nationality in Palestine runs from that date.”139 The Treaty of Lausanne had transformed the de facto status of Palestinian nationality into de jure existence from the angle of international law.140 Meanwhile, the Ottoman Empire ceased to exist.141 Likewise, on 6 August 1924, for the first time ever, international law certified the birth of the ‘Palestinian people’ as distinct from all other peoples.

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel

Read it again as it states that Although the inhabitants of Palestine remained Ottoman citizens according to international law this was right up until they declared the state of Palestine in 1988.
By turning down the right to International acceptance in 1917 they lost the rights under International Law to nationality.

 

[toastman]

PF Tinmore, et al,

OK, let's try this again, in another way.

All that is irrelevant. You are getting the procedures out or order.

(COMMENT)

What is out of order?

Palestine's borders were defined by international, post war treaties.

(COMMENT)

As to be determined by the Allied Powers and the Mandatory.


(COMMENT)

There were no "recognized borders" for Palestine. There were recognized boundaries for the Mandates.


(COMMENT)

Again nationalization and citizenship laws were established through the Administration of the Mandate in effect since 1922, not 1924.


(COMMENT)

Any party outside the League of Nations (UN as the successor), and the Mandatory was an "external interference."

The things you mentioned are products of exercising the right to self determination not prerequisites.

(COMMENT)

The "right of self-determination" was truncated by Article 22 of the Covenant.

External interference to the right to self determination is a crime under international law.

(COMMENT)

That is correct! The interference of the Arab Higher Committee and the Arab League, was illegal.

Most Respectfully,
R

Thanks for this post Rocco. It cleared up a couple of issues for me as well.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

What is the issue? Are you trying to establish that the Hostile Arab Palestinians had some other history?

I already have done but you chose to ignore the borders mutually agreed with Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon and claimed that they showed the borders of Palestine. Who negotiated the borders for Palestine when there was no legal representation of any nation of Palestine, who did Egypt Jordan Syria and Israel negotiate the borders with ?

See un res 242 for the explanation as to why Palestine could not have any borders

Israel claims Palestine's borders without negotiating with the Palestinians.

Quote the passage of resolution 242 that confirms your claim.

Read it and find on instance of Palestine being mentioned, that is why it cant have any borders as it was a non-entity

(COMMENT)

The UN Security Council Resolution S/RES/242 was well after the fact, 22 November 1967. Neither the State of Palestine, nor the Mandate of Palestine, is even mentioned once in the 1967 S/RES/242. The embedded Map does refer to the "former Mandate of Palestine."

What is your point?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

PF Tinmore, et al,

What are you talking about?

But I have already posted maps and documents showing Palestine's international borders.

You can't refute that with merely say so or a lot of smoke.

(COMMENT)

I have never posted any information on a pre-1988 State of Palestine; let alone a map.

I may have posted regional maps and mandate maps, but no State Map.

Most Respectfully,
R

I didn't say you. I said me.

Mandates have no land or borders. How can they have maps?

Think through what you have just posted and add the word Palestine in there and you may just have an epiphany

Palestinian mandates have no land or borders, how can it have a map. You are resorting to the mandate for your maps of the borders and then saying that the maps and borders are non existent. Do both your feet hurt were you have just shot yourself.

 

[Hossfly]

Name one.

Lets start off with your "Israel has no borders" claim LOL !

Then there's what Rocco just responded to you

Oh G-d, I don't want to hear that borders claim for the thousandth time. Do you Toastman?

Oh, let him claim there are no borders. I print out his posts, show them to friends and they die laughing, well almost.

 

[Ronin]

They fought for their 'identity' for "65" years, while we fought for ours for 2000.

They have 22 states to find refugee in, we have none.

Who do you think has more to lose? who will fight for their survival more?

States and identity are not solely tied to religion.

Otherwise Bangledesh would never have split off from Pakistan.

They have no more states than you have - after all, there are Jews all over the world if you look at it that way.

Both deserve recognition of their identity, a right to self determination, and a right to exist as a people. It shouldn't that hard to acknowledge - the legitimacy of fundamental rights are not determined by how long they've been fought for but by what is right and just and human - what we all want for ourselves.

There are Jews all over the world, but only one Jewish state.

There Are Arabs all over the world, with 22 states. And they don't feel it's enough, as they greed our own, as well.

The right to exist as a people is something that was offered to them in 1948. But they chose to see it that this right means that WE cannot exist as a people.

They opened a war to "establish" this right for identity, which means the destruction of ours.

They have lost.

They don't have a state today simply because we insist on existing.

That is why we're hated. For existing.

If it's us existing or them, we chose us.

Once it stops being "or", a game they have started, they'll win justice.

But as long as they insist on destroying us, they'll live with sorrow.

It's very simple.

Is this perspective taught or promoted in the Israeli educational system?

“There are Jews all over the world, but only one Jewish state.”

“There Are Arabs all over the world, with 22 states. And they don't feel it's enough, as they greed our own, as well.”

“Islam is at war with us they are the ones who refuse to 'share' Jerusalem, and by their belief, their war with the Jews is eternal.”

I’m certainly not fan of Islam and have never had a desire to study the Koran. It certainly seems to be an aggressive if not violent religion- as are all.

Doesn’t the Old Testament teach early on that Arabs are the “ass of humanity”?
If you have the ability to step back and think about that for a moment is it not reasonable to assume the results are going to be negative?

I was fortunate to visit Israel several times in the 90s and was able to see places that would be too dangerous now. A question I always wanted to people I met from both sides but never did: How do you ignore the fact that both Jewish and Arabic people are descendants from the same blood? Or is that incorrect?

 

[P F Tinmore]

PF Tinmore, et al,

OK, let's try this again, in another way.

All that is irrelevant. You are getting the procedures out or order.

(COMMENT)

What is out of order?

Phoenall listed some results of exercising the right to self determination to imply that the Palestinians had no rights without first going into the history of why these things were lacking. Going back you can see that it is not that the Palestinians did not have rights but that their rights were violated by illegal external interference.

Palestine's borders were defined by international, post war treaties.

(COMMENT)

As to be determined by the Allied Powers and the Mandatory.

And then they were, making your post irrelevant. So why did you post it? Are you just blowing smoke on the issue?

(COMMENT)

There were no "recognized borders" for Palestine. There were recognized boundaries for the Mandates.

Not true.

After the mandate left Palestine, Palestine was still there. Its borders were still there. Palestine and its borders existed separate from the mandate.

(COMMENT)

Again nationalization and citizenship laws were established through the Administration of the Mandate in effect since 1922, not 1924.

Palestinian nationality and citizenship were established through proper channels.

What is your point?

(COMMENT)

Any party outside the League of Nations (UN as the successor), and the Mandatory was an "external interference."

Link?

The things you mentioned are products of exercising the right to self determination not prerequisites.

(COMMENT)

The "right of self-determination" was truncated by Article 22 of the Covenant.

Could you quote the passage that says that?

External interference to the right to self determination is a crime under international law.

(COMMENT)

That is correct! The interference of the Arab Higher Committee and the Arab League, was illegal.

Do you have a link to confirm that statement?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

PF Tinmore, et al,

OK, let's try this again, in another way.

All that is irrelevant. You are getting the procedures out or order.

(COMMENT)

What is out of order?

Phoenall listed some results of exercising the right to self determination to imply that the Palestinians had no rights without first going into the history of why these things were lacking. Going back you can see that it is not that the Palestinians did not have rights but that their rights were violated by illegal external interference.


And then they were, making your post irrelevant. So why did you post it? Are you just blowing smoke on the issue?


Not true.

After the mandate left Palestine, Palestine was still there. Its borders were still there. Palestine and its borders existed separate from the mandate.


Palestinian nationality and citizenship were established through proper channels.

What is your point?


Link?


Could you quote the passage that says that?

(COMMENT)

That is correct! The interference of the Arab Higher Committee and the Arab League, was illegal.

Do you have a link to confirm that statement?

Most Respectfully,
R

Try again as what I listed were the attributes of statehood. Nations under the heel of another country still had leaders, currency, capital city, flag etc. They did not have any self determination but still had the trappings of statehood. Your Palestine has had none of these things over the last 2,000 years of so making it nothing but a place name on the maps.

 

[toastman]

PF Tinmore, et al,

OK, let's try this again, in another way.

All that is irrelevant. You are getting the procedures out or order.

(COMMENT)

What is out of order?

Phoenall listed some results of exercising the right to self determination to imply that the Palestinians had no rights without first going into the history of why these things were lacking. Going back you can see that it is not that the Palestinians did not have rights but that their rights were violated by illegal external interference.


And then they were, making your post irrelevant. So why did you post it? Are you just blowing smoke on the issue?


Not true.

After the mandate left Palestine, Palestine was still there. Its borders were still there. Palestine and its borders existed separate from the mandate.


Palestinian nationality and citizenship were established through proper channels.

What is your point?


Link?


Could you quote the passage that says that?

(COMMENT)

That is correct! The interference of the Arab Higher Committee and the Arab League, was illegal.

Do you have a link to confirm that statement?

Most Respectfully,
R

"And then they were, making your post irrelevant. So why did you post it? Are you just blowing smoke on the issue?"

Just because you find it irrelevant, doesn't make it so.


"After the mandate left Palestine, Palestine was still there. Its borders were still there. Palestine and its borders existed separate from the mandate."

Where did you read this? Link ???


"What is your point?"


What's yours???

 

[RoccoR]

PF Tinmore, et al,

You whole argument rests on this single point.

"After the mandate left Palestine, Palestine was still there. Its borders were still there. Palestine and its borders existed separate from the mandate."

(COMMENT)

While it is true that the Mandate for the UK Terminated and the UK left; the mandate did not terminate in its entirety. As far as the Mandate Territory and population is concerned, the power and authority of the Mandate merely changed hands from the UK to the UNPC as the successor government.

The Government of the United Kingdom, in a memorandum on the "Legal Meaning of the Termination of the Mandate", has advised the United Nations Palestine Commission that so fas the Mandatory Power is concerned the United Nations Commission will be the Government of Palestine after 15 May 1948.

7. The Commission shall instruct the Provisional Councils of Government of both the Arab and Jewish States, after their formation, to proceed to the establishment of administrative organs of government, central and local.

14. The Commission shall be guided in its activities by the recommendations of the General Assembly and by such instructions as the Security Council may consider necessary to issue.

The measures taken by the Commission, within the recommendations of the General Assembly, shall become immediately effective unless the Commission has previously received contrary instructions from the Security Council.

The Commission shall render periodic monthly progress reports, or more frequently if desirable, to the Security Council.

During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented."

SOURCE: Press Release PAL/169 17 May 1948

SOURCE: A/RES/181(II) 29 November 1947

SOURCE: Press Release PAL/138 27 February 1948

Nothing changed. The Mandate, as an instrument of "occupied enemy territory administration," after the Military defeat of the Ottoman Empire.

The borders, under the general guidance of the Allied Powers (based on decision taken by the Allied Supreme Council at the San Remo conference), were arranged between the Government of the UK and France; and not the indigenous populations.

The phrase "external interference" is a nebulous. The Hostile Arab Palestinian tends to hang on this phrase because it suits their purpose. BUT, in fact, the indigenous population was under "occupied enemy territory administration." At No Time does the Allied Supreme Council, the League of Nations, or the Mandatory give the occupied enemy territory any administrative control over the government. As you can see from the links above, the control rested with the UN and the Mandatory power (the UK or the UNPC). Any other force or influence beyond them, was a"external interference."

(Subliminal Question: How can the hostile Arab population of occupied enemy territory be not be a adverse influence when they are attempting to seize power by force over the Allied administration of multiple mandates?)​

(SUB-COMMENT)

You generally make me supply all the links and references, and I don't mind. I am use to being held to the higher standard, and peer review. There was a time that people in my former line of work were sometimes encourage to openly talk about the policy and framework of the US and the logic behind it. But in doing so, I find it confusing that when I provide the links, I'm accused of "Blowing Smoke" and when I don't provide the links, I am challenged on that basis. I do fin it annoying when you ask to provide a link on a "negative" (that which cannot be proved); but then, maybe I am not exactly sure where you get your boundary information from, but the boundaries established by the Allied Powers alter over time to fit political decisions. The northern boundaries that separate the unincorporated occupied enemy territories of the indigenous Arab (the Sykes-Picot Boundary) were codified by the FRANCO-BRITISH CONVENTION ON CERTAIN POINTS CONNECTED WITH THE MANDATES FOR STRIA AND THE LEBANON, PALESTINE AND MESOPOTAMIA Signed at Paris, December 28, 1920, after the decisions made by the Supreme Allied Council in San Remo of the same year. The first three articles of the convention outline the boundaries between the territories under the French mandate of Syria and the Lebanon on the one hand and the British mandates of Mesopotamia and Palestine.

The idea you express here is 100% wrong.

After the mandate left Palestine, Palestine was still there. Its borders were still there. Palestine and its borders existed separate from the mandate.

First: The Mandate (that is the Mandatory) did not "leave" Palestine in the sense you suggest. The Mandatory powers merely changes from the UK to the UNPC (ie the Security Council).

Second: As I've demonstrated, and you can read for yourself in the FRANCO-BRITISH CONVENTION of 1920, the borders are intricately tied to the Mandates.

Article 1

The boundaries between the territories under the French mandate of Syria and the Lebanon on the one hand and the British mandates of Mesopotamia and Palestine on the other are determined as follows: ....

SOURCE: 122 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
FRANCO-BRITISH CONVENTION ON CERTAIN POINTS CONNECTED WITH THE MANDATES FOR STRIA AND THE LEBANON, PALESTINE AND MESOPOTAMIA

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

PF Tinmore, et al,

OK, let's try this again, in another way.


(COMMENT)

What is out of order?

Phoenall listed some results of exercising the right to self determination to imply that the Palestinians had no rights without first going into the history of why these things were lacking. Going back you can see that it is not that the Palestinians did not have rights but that their rights were violated by illegal external interference.


And then they were, making your post irrelevant. So why did you post it? Are you just blowing smoke on the issue?


Not true.

After the mandate left Palestine, Palestine was still there. Its borders were still there. Palestine and its borders existed separate from the mandate.


Palestinian nationality and citizenship were established through proper channels.

What is your point?


Link?


Could you quote the passage that says that?


Do you have a link to confirm that statement?

Most Respectfully,
R

"And then they were, making your post irrelevant. So why did you post it? Are you just blowing smoke on the issue?"

Just because you find it irrelevant, doesn't make it so.

I said: "Palestine's borders were defined by international, post war treaties." Which is true.

Rocco said: "As to be determined by the Allied Powers and the Mandatory." Which is also true.

Then I said: "And then they were, making your post irrelevant."

Shortly thereafter Palestine's international borders were defined. So, what was the purpose of his post?

"After the mandate left Palestine, Palestine was still there. Its borders were still there. Palestine and its borders existed separate from the mandate."

Where did you read this? Link ???

The 1949 UN armistice agreements (the year following the end of the mandate) called Palestine Palestine many times. They referenced Palestine's international borders for determining the placement of armistice lines.

I can post links if you like.

"What is your point?"


What's yours???