I will not Bow!

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

As a point of clarification.

Palestine was named. Its international borders were defined. The nationality of Palestinians was determined. Palestinians were to be citizens of Palestine.

All of this, however, was all de facto. Legally, Palestine was still Turkish territory and Palestinians were Turkish citizens.

The Treaty of Lausanne changed all that. Palestine changed from a territory of Turkey to a successor state making du jure all of those things that were de facto before the treaty was signed.

Even though Palestine was not mentioned by name, the provisions applied universally to all of the new states that were ceded from Turkey.

(OBSERVATION)
Reference: Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel

Please note that the citation you provided makes reference to footnote #123, "123 British Government, Report on the Administration under Mandate of Palestine, 1924, p. 6."

VI.--Nationality.

1.Q.--What is the text of the Nationality law?

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

1 and 2. A.--The Palestine Citizenship Order-in-Council was drawn up in 1924, but the final text was not settled and the Order made until July, 1925. The matter will therefore be dealt with in the Report for 1925.


SOURCE: Report 31 December 1924

(COMMENT)

So far, on close examination and tracking back to the original source of the information, does any of it suggest that the Mandate of Palestine was affected at all by the Treaty of Lausanne. And that you claim that Palestine was defined by other than the Allied Powers, and the Nationality Law, as administered of Palestine by The Palestine Citizenship Order-in-Council, was in any way altered by the Treaty of Lausanne is anything other than an unsubstantiated claim.

(b) All persons of other than Turkish nationality habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the said date, who shall within two calendar months of the said date make application for Palestinian citizenship in such form and before such officer as may be prescribed by the High Commissioner. -

See more at: Mandate for Palestine - The Palestine Order in LoN Council - Mandatory order (10 August 1922)

It should be said, nothing of consequence happened on 6 August 1924, relative to Palestine; nothing at all. It is a totally bogus argument.

Most Respectfully,
R

Not true.

That was the date that Turkish citizens became Palestinians citizens as confirmed by the Palestine Citizenship Order of 24 July 1925.

In Palestine, citizenship was governed by the Palestine Citizenship Order of 24 July 1925 (Statutory Rules and Orders, I925, No. 777; which came into force on 1 August 1925), amended by various successive orders. This defined a Palestinian as a 'Turkish subject habitually resident in the territory of Palestine". The amended text of the Order of 24 July 1925 is worded as follows:

"Turkish citizens habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 6th day of August 1924 shall become Palestinian citizens."​

Palestine Citizenship Order 1925 (articles/books/maps/cartoons/photographs/video or audio clips)

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

And here is the circular argument.

Arrgghhh ! In 1948, they declared independence on LAND THAT HAD ALREADY BEEN DECLARED INDEPENDENT BY ANOTHER PEOPLE.

You keep saying that but have yet to prove that it is true.

(COMMENT)

The Jewish State was the outcome of the implementation of the General Assembly Resolution 181(II); which you don't recognize, but both the PLO (as the sole representative of the Palestinian People) and the Jewish State did. The Jewish State declared independence IAW RES 181 in May 1948. The Palestinians declared independence IAW RES 181 in November 1988.

Anything the AHC did in September 1948, was discarded because it was not in compliance. It was not even recognized by the Arab League.

A committee of the same name was reconstituted by the Arab League in 1945, but went to abeyance after it proved ineffective during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. It was banned by Jordan in 1948, and sidestepped by Egypt and the Arab League with the formation of the All-Palestine Government in 1948.

SOURCE: Arab Higher Committee Portal AND/OR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Higher_Committee

In 1948, the Arab Higher Committee failed to satisfy the traditional criteria for statehood: it did not have effective governmental control in any area in which they presumed their state to exist, or any effective control over a permanent population.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Jewish State was the outcome of the implementation of the General Assembly Resolution 181(II);

Where in Israel's declaration of independence did they say that they accepted the proposed resolution 181 borders?

Quote the passage.

 

[Kondor3]

"...In a broader international context, the 'Nationality law… showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship'..."

Fine.

In the case of Old Palestine, at the moment of the termination of the Guardianship of the Mandate...

The North (Israel) seceeded from the Union.

A civil war was fought over the secession.

Victory on the battlefield legitimized the new Rebel State.

Permanently splitting Old Palestine into (1) Israel and (2) Rump Palestine.

And setting aside - forevermore - old legal status and ownerships and understandings.

Their borders then became defined as whatever territory they were holding by population pressure or force of arms.

Their borders became whatever the Israelis say they are.

Don't like that?

Time-travel back to 1948, fight for the Arabs, and win.

 

[pbel]

"...In a broader international context, the 'Nationality law… showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship'..."

Fine.

In the case of Old Palestine, at the moment of the termination of the Guardianship of the Mandate...

The North (Israel) seceeded from the Union.

A civil war was fought over the secession.

Victory on the battlefield legitimized the new Rebel State.

Permanently splitting Old Palestine into (1) Israel and (2) Rump Palestine.

And setting aside - forevermore - old legal status and ownerships and understandings.

Their borders then became defined as whatever territory they were holding by population pressure or force of arms.

Their borders became whatever the Israelis say they are.

Don't like that?

Time-travel back to 1948, fight for the Arabs, and win.

I have to agree with you...This conflict can only be settled by war or force of arms...

I just don't see how Israel is going to survive in the long run without a Political solution...Wars of resistance or in a wider sense attrition numbers win...this is how the Arabs have managed to defeat all previous invaders in history...

It will take a long time.

 

[Kondor3]

"...In a broader international context, the 'Nationality law… showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship'..."

Fine.

In the case of Old Palestine, at the moment of the termination of the Guardianship of the Mandate...

The North (Israel) seceeded from the Union.

A civil war was fought over the secession.

Victory on the battlefield legitimized the new Rebel State.

Permanently splitting Old Palestine into (1) Israel and (2) Rump Palestine.

And setting aside - forevermore - old legal status and ownerships and understandings.

Their borders then became defined as whatever territory they were holding by population pressure or force of arms.

Their borders became whatever the Israelis say they are.

Don't like that?

Time-travel back to 1948, fight for the Arabs, and win.

I have to agree with you...This conflict can only be settled by war or force of arms...

I just don't see how Israel is going to survive in the long run without a Political solution...Wars of resistance or in a wider sense attrition numbers win...this is how the Arabs have managed to defeat all previous invaders in history...

It will take a long time.

And yet, given that the Arabs will, in the end, settle for nothing less than the recovery of all of Old Palestine and the erasure of the State of Israel, a permanent political settlement appears to be forevermore out of reach, and pointless.

Make a political settlement giving back part of Old Palestine now and things go quiet for 10 or 20 years, until they demand the NEXT chunk, in Round No. 417 of their quest for reconquest and mastery...

If true - and I sincerely and genuinely believe that to be the case, based on the past experiences of Israel, and the multi-generational jihad mentality that pervades Islam...

If the Israelis give an inch, the Palestinians will be back tomorrow to take a mile...

If the Israelis show a measure of weakness, the Palestinians will pounce like vultures...

Ultimately, given who the Israelis are up against - there's no possibility of a lasting political settlement, and no longer any point in trying.

And if THAT is true - if there is no longer any point in trying - then, the Israelis might as well just bite the goddamned bullet, and complete the job of reconquest of Eretz Yislrael, and get it the hell over with, while their neighbors are crippled with troubles of their own... evicting and expelling the Problematic Folk, and moving Jews into the vacuum, in order to gain internal security.

It's bad enough to be insecure with respect to some of your neighbors, but a fait accompli is usually difficult to reverse, and the Arabs have bled enough for the Palestinians - we're looking at long-term donor exhaustion on the part of the Arabs - I think they've had sufficient demonstrations of Israeli military might to last them for a generation or two.

It's quite another matter - and foolhardy - to perpetuate a situation that creates internal security problems.

 

[docmauser1]

In Palestine, citizenship was governed by the Palestine Citizenship Order of 24 July 1925 (Statutory Rules and Orders, I925, No. 777; which came into force on 1 August 1925), amended by various successive orders. This defined a Palestinian as a 'Turkish subject habitually resident in the territory of Palestine". The amended text of the Order of 24 July 1925 is worded as follows:

"Turkish citizens habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 6th day of August 1924 shall become Palestinian citizens."​

Palestine Citizenship Order 1925 (articles/books/maps/cartoons/photographs/video or audio clips)

It's "palestinian citizenship", not palistanian citizenship, of course. Let us not mislead the innocent and the gullible.

 

[toastman]

Do you have a link to that?


You need to re read my posts. I didn't say that.


What right to declare independence did the Palestinians have in 1988 that they did not have in 1948?

You should respond to his questions before you ask any.

You need to re read my posts. I didn't say that.

I asked you what day,month,year did Palestine become a country. You answered by giving me the date of the Treaty of Laussane, therefore implying that it was that treaty that Made Palestine. That is very interesting considering the word Palestine isn't even mentioned.

What right to declare independence did the Palestinians have in 1988 that they did not have in 1948?

Arrgghhh ! In 1948, they declared independence on LAND THAT HAD ALREADY BEEN DECLARED INDEPENDENT BY ANOTHER PEOPLE.

Have you ever even read about the 1988 DOI ??? If so, can I see the link you are using for that?

Arrgghhh ! In 1948, they declared independence on LAND THAT HAD ALREADY BEEN DECLARED INDEPENDENT BY ANOTHER PEOPLE.

You keep saying that but have yet to prove that it is true.

Prove what is true? That Israel declared independence ? They did so on the land ALLOTTED to them in Resolution 181.

After the Arabs invaded the territory with the intention of destroying the newly founded state, Israel not only kept its territory (Resolution 181), but they captured 50% of the land allotted to the 'Palestinians' in Resolution 181.

Now of course you're going to say that the extra 50% they captured is occupied, right?

Well go right ahead so I can dismantle that claim as well

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

And here is the circular argument.

You keep saying that but have yet to prove that it is true.

(COMMENT)

The Jewish State was the outcome of the implementation of the General Assembly Resolution 181(II); which you don't recognize, but both the PLO (as the sole representative of the Palestinian People) and the Jewish State did. The Jewish State declared independence IAW RES 181 in May 1948. The Palestinians declared independence IAW RES 181 in November 1988.

Anything the AHC did in September 1948, was discarded because it was not in compliance. It was not even recognized by the Arab League.



In 1948, the Arab Higher Committee failed to satisfy the traditional criteria for statehood: it did not have effective governmental control in any area in which they presumed their state to exist, or any effective control over a permanent population.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Jewish State was the outcome of the implementation of the General Assembly Resolution 181(II);

Where in Israel's declaration of independence did they say that they accepted the proposed resolution 181 borders?

Quote the passage.

It does not need to as 181 does not define any borders, it suggests possible borders. This is the International Law in regards to Israel

“The State of Israel is thus not legally derived from the partition plan, but rests (as do most other states in the world) on assertion of independence by its people and government, on the vindication of that independence by arms against assault by other states, and on the establishment of orderly government within territory under its stable control.”

So you see International law is in support of Israel and not the filastins.

 

[Phoenall]

In Palestine, citizenship was governed by the Palestine Citizenship Order of 24 July 1925 (Statutory Rules and Orders, I925, No. 777; which came into force on 1 August 1925), amended by various successive orders. This defined a Palestinian as a 'Turkish subject habitually resident in the territory of Palestine". The amended text of the Order of 24 July 1925 is worded as follows:

"Turkish citizens habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 6th day of August 1924 shall become Palestinian citizens."​

Palestine Citizenship Order 1925 (articles/books/maps/cartoons/photographs/video or audio clips)

It's "palestinian citizenship", not palistanian citizenship, of course. Let us not mislead the innocent and the gullible.

Maybe this will help him understand this better

Mandate for Palestine - Report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations (31 December 1924)

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 Government of Palestine has continued by legislative, administrative and fiscal measures to develop and improve local conditions, with the general aim of providing equal security and opportunity for all communities and classes, and of encouraging enterprise. Jewish initiative has been quick to take advantage of the more favourable conditions thus created for industrial development and agricultural settlement (see pp. 3 and 4 of the Report for 1924); and 12,856 Jewish immigrants arrived in Palestine in the course of the year. A special ordinance was passed to incorporate the enterprises of Baron Edmond de Rothschild, which are concerned with the settlement of Jews on the land in Palestine. There were also incorporated in accordance with the law of companies and co-operative societies the American Zion Commonwealth for the promotion of Jewish agricultural settlement in Palestine, and a number of Jewish co-operative societies for building and credit purposes. In consequence of the facilities provided by the Correction of Land Registers Ordinance and with the assistance of the Government Land Registries, properties owned by Jewish interests, but under the Ottoman régime registered in the name of Ottoman subjects, are now being recorded in the names of the actual owners.


2.Q.--What measures have been taken to place the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the development of self-governing institutions? What are the effects of these measures? A.--Legislation is still passed by the official Advisory Council, over which the High Commissioner presides, under the sanction of the Palestine (Amendment) Order-in-Council, 1923. The Palestine Legislative Council (Election) Order-in-Council, 1922, and those provisions of the Palestine Order-in-Council, 1922, which deal with the establishment of a Legislative Council have been suspended on account of the abstention of a majority of the Arab population from the elections to a Legislative Council. As the consequence such progress as can be recorded in this direction is in the sphere of local rather than central government.



So as we can see the arab Palestinians turned down the chance to be Palestinian citizens.

 

[RoccoR]

docmauser1, et al,

I believe or friend "docmauser1" is on the right track.

First, let me make reference to my Post #938, and specifically the quotations.

In Palestine, citizenship was governed by the Palestine Citizenship Order of 24 July 1925 (Statutory Rules and Orders, I925, No. 777; which came into force on 1 August 1925), amended by various successive orders. This defined a Palestinian as a 'Turkish subject habitually resident in the territory of Palestine". The amended text of the Order of 24 July 1925 is worded as follows:

"Turkish citizens habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 6th day of August 1924 shall become Palestinian citizens."​

Palestine Citizenship Order 1925 (articles/books/maps/cartoons/photographs/video or audio clips)

It's "palestinian citizenship", not palistanian citizenship, of course. Let us not mislead the innocent and the gullible.

(COMMENT)

They were actually trying to make a distinction between those people that wanted to retain citizenship under the new Turkish Government, yet lived in Mandate territory (what we would call today a permanent resident alien); and those that wanted to relinquish Turkish citizenship in favor of the new governments under the Mandate.

This original language string dates back to the Order in Council of August 1922, and not the more refined language we see in the 1924 Lausanne Treaty. It was part and parcel of the intent to protect both the Mandatory Powers (several of them) and the civil rights of the population. Nor was there an intent to create a new nationality under a new sovereign power.

In Post #925, our friend PF Tinmore makes the claim that:

Palestine was named. Its international borders were defined. The nationality of Palestinians was determined. Palestinians were to be citizens of Palestine.

All of this, however, was all de facto. Legally, Palestine was still Turkish territory and Palestinians were Turkish citizens.

The Treaty of Lausanne changed all that. Palestine changed from a territory of Turkey to a successor state making du jure all of those things that were de facto before the treaty was signed.

Even though Palestine was not mentioned by name, the provisions applied universally to all of the new states that were ceded from Turkey.

The fact of the matter is, that in 12 August 1922, the Palestine Order in Council, 10 August 1922 was already legally in place; immediately followed by theMandate of Palestine. The 1924 Lausanne Treaty was, for the purpose of this topic, to clarify and solidify what had already been put in place.

• Yes, Palestine was named, as a Mandate Territory in 1920; included in the land from the Mediterranean Sea to the frontier of Persia; known as Syria in SECTION I - TERRITORIAL CLAUSES - Article 3 of the Lausanne Treaty.
  
• Yes, the international borders were defined as determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory selected by the Allied Powers. The Article 5 Boundary Commission was not responsible for marking the previous arrangements of the Syke-Picot Agreement.
  
• No, Palestine was NOT still Turkish territory but well under the control of the Allied Powers; but there was a question as to the citizenship of the various populations in the Mandate Territory. Hence, the the reason for a Order in Council on the matter.
  
• No, Palestine DID NOT changed from a territory of Turkey to a successor state making de jure all of those things that were de facto before the treaty was signed. That was not the intent. The Article 5 Boundary Commission (Lausanne Treaty) was appointed to trace on the ground the frontiers defined by previous agreements (directly pertaining to SECTION I. - TERRITORIAL CLAUSES within ARTICLE 2 that excluded the Syrian Territory for which Palestine was included) and was subject to those previous agreements on territorial responsibility.
  
• No, the provisions (of the Lausanne Treaty) DO NOT applied universally to all of the new states that were ceded from Turkey; as some were specific and some were general. In fact, what were later to become new states (in the Mandate "A" Class regions in the Middle East) was a matter subject to the Mandatory Powers, pursuant under the supervision and oversight of the Allied Powers and the League of Nations.

There is no support for the implication that the SECTION II - NATIONALITY - ARTICLES 30 thru 36, altered in any form, the original intention of the San Remo Agreement, the original Palestine Order in Council, or the Mandate of Palestine.

I hope this helps clarify the claims.

Most Responsibility,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

To an extent, I think that our friend "Phoenall" has a very good point.

And here is the circular argument.

(COMMENT)

The Jewish State was the outcome of the implementation of the General Assembly Resolution 181(II); which you don't recognize, but both the PLO (as the sole representative of the Palestinian People) and the Jewish State did. The Jewish State declared independence IAW RES 181 in May 1948. The Palestinians declared independence IAW RES 181 in November 1988.

Anything the AHC did in September 1948, was discarded because it was not in compliance. It was not even recognized by the Arab League.

In 1948, the Arab Higher Committee failed to satisfy the traditional criteria for statehood: it did not have effective governmental control in any area in which they presumed their state to exist, or any effective control over a permanent population.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Jewish State was the outcome of the implementation of the General Assembly Resolution 181(II);

Where in Israel's declaration of independence did they say that they accepted the proposed resolution 181 borders?

Quote the passage.

It does not need to as 181 does not define any borders, it suggests possible borders. This is the International Law in regards to Israel

“The State of Israel is thus not legally derived from the partition plan, but rests (as do most other states in the world) on assertion of independence by its people and government, on the vindication of that independence by arms against assault by other states, and on the establishment of orderly government within territory under its stable control.”

So you see International law is in support of Israel and not the filastins.

(COMMENT)

The original PART II Boundaries noted in Section B (Jewish State), were made obsolete and over taken by events on the outbreak of hostilities from the invasion of the 5 Arab Armies.

That makes Phoenall's quote very applicable for today in the shadow of post-War outcomes: "vindication of that independence by arms against assault by other states, and on the establishment of orderly government within territory under its stable control.”

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

To an extent, I think that our friend "Phoenall" has a very good point.

Where in Israel's declaration of independence did they say that they accepted the proposed resolution 181 borders?

Quote the passage.

It does not need to as 181 does not define any borders, it suggests possible borders. This is the International Law in regards to Israel

“The State of Israel is thus not legally derived from the partition plan, but rests (as do most other states in the world) on assertion of independence by its people and government, on the vindication of that independence by arms against assault by other states, and on the establishment of orderly government within territory under its stable control.”

So you see International law is in support of Israel and not the filastins.

(COMMENT)

The original PART II Boundaries noted in Section B (Jewish State), were made obsolete and over taken by events on the outbreak of hostilities from the invasion of the 5 Arab Armies.

That makes Phoenall's quote very applicable for today in the shadow of post-War outcomes: "vindication of that independence by arms against assault by other states, and on the establishment of orderly government within territory under its stable control.”

Most Respectfully,
R

Nice duck.

Of course that did not answer my question.

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

To an extent, I think that our friend "Phoenall" has a very good point.

It does not need to as 181 does not define any borders, it suggests possible borders. This is the International Law in regards to Israel

“The State of Israel is thus not legally derived from the partition plan, but rests (as do most other states in the world) on assertion of independence by its people and government, on the vindication of that independence by arms against assault by other states, and on the establishment of orderly government within territory under its stable control.”

So you see International law is in support of Israel and not the filastins.

(COMMENT)

The original PART II Boundaries noted in Section B (Jewish State), were made obsolete and over taken by events on the outbreak of hostilities from the invasion of the 5 Arab Armies.

That makes Phoenall's quote very applicable for today in the shadow of post-War outcomes: "vindication of that independence by arms against assault by other states, and on the establishment of orderly government within territory under its stable control.”

Most Respectfully,
R

Nice duck.

Of course that did not answer my question.

Yes he did. He said "it did not need to" , which of course means, it didn't.

Not that your question is relevant or has any meaning.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

To an extent, I think that our friend "Phoenall" has a very good point.


(COMMENT)

The original PART II Boundaries noted in Section B (Jewish State), were made obsolete and over taken by events on the outbreak of hostilities from the invasion of the 5 Arab Armies.

That makes Phoenall's quote very applicable for today in the shadow of post-War outcomes: "vindication of that independence by arms against assault by other states, and on the establishment of orderly government within territory under its stable control.”

Most Respectfully,
R

Nice duck.

Of course that did not answer my question.

Yes he did. He said "it did not need to" , which of course means, it didn't.

Not that your question is relevant or has any meaning.

No he didn't.

The Jewish State was the outcome of the implementation of the General Assembly Resolution 181(II)

Where in Israel's declaration of independence did they say that they accepted the proposed resolution 181 borders?

Quote the passage.

Then Rocco started to blow smoke. That question remains unanswered.

 

[toastman]

Nice duck.

Of course that did not answer my question.

Yes he did. He said "it did not need to" , which of course means, it didn't.

Not that your question is relevant or has any meaning.

No he didn't.

The Jewish State was the outcome of the implementation of the General Assembly Resolution 181(II)

Where in Israel's declaration of independence did they say that they accepted the proposed resolution 181 borders?

Quote the passage.

Then Rocco started to blow smoke. That question remains unanswered.

You only asked ONE question. He answered that question. You need to deal with your reading comprehension issues.

Oh. and you out of all people shouldn't accuse others of 'blowing smoke'

 

[P F Tinmore]

Yes he did. He said "it did not need to" , which of course means, it didn't.

Not that your question is relevant or has any meaning.

No he didn't.

Where in Israel's declaration of independence did they say that they accepted the proposed resolution 181 borders?

Quote the passage.

Then Rocco started to blow smoke. That question remains unanswered.

You only asked ONE question. He answered that question. You need to deal with your reading comprehension issues.

Oh. and you out of all people shouldn't accuse others of 'blowing smoke'

Specifically, what was the answer to my question?

 

[Billo_Really]

That consisted of Jews, Christians and nomadic arabs, the rest were itinerant farm workers from outside the region. Are you saying that only the nomadic arabs had any rights, while the Jews and Christians had none.

The arabs were not nomadic, they were residents.

And ALL residents had inalienable rights, irregardless of what name they call God.

Or are you saying that a foreign interloper has more rights than an indigenous Jew, Chritian and arab nomad ?

That would be Zionists who migrated into the area and no, they don't have more rights than the people already living there.

 

[toastman]

No he didn't.



Then Rocco started to blow smoke. That question remains unanswered.

You only asked ONE question. He answered that question. You need to deal with your reading comprehension issues.

Oh. and you out of all people shouldn't accuse others of 'blowing smoke'

Specifically, what was the answer to my question?

Wow. He said it doesn't need to be written. Meaning NO

 

[P F Tinmore]

You only asked ONE question. He answered that question. You need to deal with your reading comprehension issues.

Oh. and you out of all people shouldn't accuse others of 'blowing smoke'

Specifically, what was the answer to my question?

Wow. He said it doesn't need to be written. Meaning NO

Then I have always wondered why he always invokes resolution 181 when it really doesn't apply.

 

[toastman]

Specifically, what was the answer to my question?

Wow. He said it doesn't need to be written. Meaning NO

Then I have always wondered why he always invokes resolution 181 when it really doesn't apply.

Ive shown you several links that say otherwise, even concerning the Palestinian declaration of independence.
Im on my phone, but ill post the links later ..........AGAIN!