I will not Bow!

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

There is nothing in the Treaty that says anything about Palestine, or the Palestinians.

Remember, what the Allied Powers provisionally recognised as independent was "within such boundaries as may be fixed by the Allied Powers."

And the were. Palestine's international borders were defined.

The Palestinians were a distinct nationality.

The Palestinians were citizens of Palestine.

The Treaty of Lausanne was when these de facto characteristics became de jure.

I quoted treaties and laws that stated these points.

Then you said:

You attempt to imply that "Palestine" was set free by the Treaty of Lausanne, and that a new nation was established with a nationality and citizenship known as "Palestinians." Nothing can be further from the truth.

What do you have to prove that these documents are incorrect?

(COMMENT)

You quoted nothing form the Treaty that cites the borders of Palestine or the independent nationality of the Palestinians.

You cite a a research paper that reinterprets Part - Article 30 - SECTION II - NATIONALITY (Lausanne Treaty) which says "nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred." The territory of Palestine (not mentioned specifically in the treaty) was transferred to Allied control through the League of Nations Mandate System; NOT another "state." Under the Mandate of Palestine, the UK administered the immigration and naturalization laws.

Your pro-Palestinian source, Bulletin du Centre de recherche français à Jérusalem, research paper is attempting to manipulate the history and application of the facts. The Treaty is worded that way because it not only deals with three different Mandatories (UK, FR, RU), but several other countries and territories that were incorporated to other states. What was (at that time) considered the Mandate of Palestine had Orders in Council and the Mandate directive that specifically addressed the nationality issues.

When you ask, "What do you have to prove that these documents are incorrect?" What are you asking?

• There is nothing in the Treaty that corroborates that "Palestine's international borders were defined."
  • I challenge you to find one word concerning Palestine in the Treaty.
  • I challenge you to find one word from the Border Commission concerning Palestine.
• There is nothing in the Treaty that corroborates that "Palestinians were a distinct nationality."
  • I challenge you to point out the State to which the Territory under Mandate is transferred to make Article 30 applicable.
• There is nothing in the Treaty that corroborates "Palestinians were citizens of Palestine."
  • The indigenous population assumed the citizenship as directed by the criteria laid down by the respective mandatories. Nothing in the Treaty alters that.

You said: "I quoted treaties and laws that stated these points." You quoted a research paper that tries to re-interpret Article 30 which states:

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

What became know as Palestine, was placed in Mandate, and had already been in Mandate since 1920, and remained so well after the Treaty was signed and went into force. The interpretation that Palestinian Citizenship was conferred by treaty is 100% wrong. The same Allied Powers that established the League of Nations that wrote the Mandate and controlled the territory they named as Palestine, ALSO wrote the Treaty of Lausanne. They all match. The origins and Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine stem from the original authorities long before the Treaty. The Genesis of Citizenship in Israel Israel stem from its Declaration of Independence long after the Treaty.

There is nothing wrong with the Treaty, it is just fine. It is your interpretation of the Treaty I fine in error. You subscribe things to the Treaty that just are not there; in some desperate attempt to substantiate a "state" that never was until 1988.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

There is nothing in the Treaty that says anything about Palestine, or the Palestinians.

Remember, what the Allied Powers provisionally recognised as independent was "within such boundaries as may be fixed by the Allied Powers."

And the were. Palestine's international borders were defined.

The Palestinians were a distinct nationality.

The Palestinians were citizens of Palestine.

The Treaty of Lausanne was when these de facto characteristics became de jure.

I quoted treaties and laws that stated these points.

Then you said:



What do you have to prove that these documents are incorrect?

(COMMENT)

You quoted nothing form the Treaty that cites the borders of Palestine or the independent nationality of the Palestinians.

You cite a a research paper that reinterprets Part - Article 30 - SECTION II - NATIONALITY (Lausanne Treaty) which says "nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred." The territory of Palestine (not mentioned specifically in the treaty) was transferred to Allied control through the League of Nations Mandate System; NOT another "state." Under the Mandate of Palestine, the UK administered the immigration and naturalization laws.

Your pro-Palestinian source, Bulletin du Centre de recherche français à Jérusalem, research paper is attempting to manipulate the history and application of the facts. The Treaty is worded that way because it not only deals with three different Mandatories (UK, FR, RU), but several other countries and territories that were incorporated to other states. What was (at that time) considered the Mandate of Palestine had Orders in Council and the Mandate directive that specifically addressed the nationality issues.

When you ask, "What do you have to prove that these documents are incorrect?" What are you asking?

• There is nothing in the Treaty that corroborates that "Palestine's international borders were defined."
  • I challenge you to find one word concerning Palestine in the Treaty.
  • I challenge you to find one word from the Border Commission concerning Palestine.
• There is nothing in the Treaty that corroborates that "Palestinians were a distinct nationality."
  • I challenge you to point out the State to which the Territory under Mandate is transferred to make Article 30 applicable.
• There is nothing in the Treaty that corroborates "Palestinians were citizens of Palestine."
  • The indigenous population assumed the citizenship as directed by the criteria laid down by the respective mandatories. Nothing in the Treaty alters that.

You said: "I quoted treaties and laws that stated these points." You quoted a research paper that tries to re-interpret Article 30 which states:

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

What became know as Palestine, was placed in Mandate, and had already been in Mandate since 1920, and remained so well after the Treaty was signed and went into force. The interpretation that Palestinian Citizenship was conferred by treaty is 100% wrong. The same Allied Powers that established the League of Nations that wrote the Mandate and controlled the territory they named as Palestine, ALSO wrote the Treaty of Lausanne. They all match. The origins and Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine stem from the original authorities long before the Treaty. The Genesis of Citizenship in Israel Israel stem from its Declaration of Independence long after the Treaty.

There is nothing wrong with the Treaty, it is just fine. It is your interpretation of the Treaty I fine in error. You subscribe things to the Treaty that just are not there; in some desperate attempt to substantiate a "state" that never was until 1988.

Most Respectfully,
R

There is nothing in the Treaty that says anything about Palestine, or the Palestinians.

I never said there was.

Why the red herring?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Hummm,,, Not a "Red Herring."

There is nothing in the Treaty that says anything about Palestine, or the Palestinians.

I never said there was.

Why the red herring?

(COMMENT)

You are attempting to make a case; attributing qualities and characteristics that you claim come from the Treaty. I was merely making it plain, that in no way does the treaty singularly or collectively address either the people or the territory in any specific manner.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Hummm,,, Not a "Red Herring."

There is nothing in the Treaty that says anything about Palestine, or the Palestinians.

I never said there was.

Why the red herring?

(COMMENT)

You are attempting to make a case; attributing qualities and characteristics that you claim come from the Treaty. I was merely making it plain, that in no way does the treaty singularly or collectively address either the people or the territory in any specific manner.

Most Respectfully,
R

Not!

You haven't been reading my posts.

 

[freedombecki]

P F Tinmore, et al,

There is nothing in the Treaty that says anything about Palestine, or the Palestinians.

Remember, what the Allied Powers provisionally recognised as independent was "within such boundaries as may be fixed by the Allied Powers."

And the were. Palestine's international borders were defined.

The Palestinians were a distinct nationality.

The Palestinians were citizens of Palestine.

The Treaty of Lausanne was when these de facto characteristics became de jure.

I quoted treaties and laws that stated these points.

Then you said:



What do you have to prove that these documents are incorrect?

(COMMENT)

You quoted nothing form the Treaty that cites the borders of Palestine or the independent nationality of the Palestinians.

You cite a a research paper that reinterprets Part - Article 30 - SECTION II - NATIONALITY (Lausanne Treaty) which says "nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred." The territory of Palestine (not mentioned specifically in the treaty) was transferred to Allied control through the League of Nations Mandate System; NOT another "state." Under the Mandate of Palestine, the UK administered the immigration and naturalization laws.

Your pro-Palestinian source, Bulletin du Centre de recherche français à Jérusalem, research paper is attempting to manipulate the history and application of the facts. The Treaty is worded that way because it not only deals with three different Mandatories (UK, FR, RU), but several other countries and territories that were incorporated to other states. What was (at that time) considered the Mandate of Palestine had Orders in Council and the Mandate directive that specifically addressed the nationality issues.

When you ask, "What do you have to prove that these documents are incorrect?" What are you asking?

• There is nothing in the Treaty that corroborates that "Palestine's international borders were defined."
  • I challenge you to find one word concerning Palestine in the Treaty.
  • I challenge you to find one word from the Border Commission concerning Palestine.
• There is nothing in the Treaty that corroborates that "Palestinians were a distinct nationality."
  • I challenge you to point out the State to which the Territory under Mandate is transferred to make Article 30 applicable.
• There is nothing in the Treaty that corroborates "Palestinians were citizens of Palestine."
  • The indigenous population assumed the citizenship as directed by the criteria laid down by the respective mandatories. Nothing in the Treaty alters that.

You said: "I quoted treaties and laws that stated these points." You quoted a research paper that tries to re-interpret Article 30 which states:

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

What became know as Palestine, was placed in Mandate, and had already been in Mandate since 1920, and remained so well after the Treaty was signed and went into force. The interpretation that Palestinian Citizenship was conferred by treaty is 100% wrong. The same Allied Powers that established the League of Nations that wrote the Mandate and controlled the territory they named as Palestine, ALSO wrote the Treaty of Lausanne. They all match. The origins and Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine stem from the original authorities long before the Treaty. The Genesis of Citizenship in Israel Israel stem from its Declaration of Independence long after the Treaty.

There is nothing wrong with the Treaty, it is just fine. It is your interpretation of the Treaty I fine in error. You subscribe things to the Treaty that just are not there; in some desperate attempt to substantiate a "state" that never was until 1988.

Most Respectfully,
R

I could be wrong, Rocco, but the reason things were specifically avoided may have been because of the history of killing in the region based strictly on religious and ethnic backgrounds which pushed Jewish natives in the region to Europe, where it was easier to kill Jewish people by proxy by planting bad stories about them and blaming them for things they did not do to the German people, at least not on a large scale. Additionally, one of their own led the fight to kill all the Jews in Europe and was given an enthusiastic welcome when he offered hundreds of thousands of his fellow muslims to fight for Hitler's causes in exchange for the promise that after all the Jews in Europe were assassinated, that Hitler would send his forces to the Middle East to go after all Jews.

The committee that reinstated the rights of Jews in their own historic land of Israel was to hopefully stop the killing of a War that took one hundred million lives in conflicts involving heavy metal and poisonings. The UN was established to ensure this genocide of Jews would never crop up in the world again.

To keep bringing hate back into the picture with homicide bombings and surreptitious murders of Jews and Americans, who actually were instrumental in getting the people of the Middle East back on their feet with extracting fossil fuels, recalls the misinformation that preceded Germany's Krystalnacht which propelled World War II and showed Hitler he could take power by reinforcing the hatred of people taught from the cradle to hate people of other religious backgrounds.

It's a sad day to open a news page and read up on the dreadful things being done in a torn middle east and the constant lying that goes around when Jews defend their right to exist.

It's a sad day the mullahs and muftis have the power to spin one false witness against people they wish to get rid of and have so many believers around the globe, using prideful religion as a reason to kill Jewish people.

Genocidal politics abolish peaceful negotiations like nothing else. How many wars to we have to fight to stop it?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Then we must be in agreement.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Hummm,,, Not a "Red Herring."

I never said there was.

Why the red herring?

(COMMENT)

You are attempting to make a case; attributing qualities and characteristics that you claim come from the Treaty. I was merely making it plain, that in no way does the treaty singularly or collectively address either the people or the territory in any specific manner.

Most Respectfully,
R

Not!

You haven't been reading my posts.

(COMMENT)

Other than what was established by the powers invested in the Mandatory and the Allied Powers:

The international borders were defined by the Allied Powers; not the Treaty and not by virtue of the the inhabitants.

The Palestinians were not a distinct nationality; being separate in any fashion from other Arab within the central Levant, those in the surrounding administrative districts (later known as Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia).

The Palestinians were NOT citizens of Palestine. They were Arabs that became known as Palestinians, after the Allied Powers established the Mandate of Palestine over a territory they defined; and assumed responsibilities for legislative action, immigration, citizenship and naturalization.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Then we must be in agreement.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Hummm,,, Not a "Red Herring."


(COMMENT)

You are attempting to make a case; attributing qualities and characteristics that you claim come from the Treaty. I was merely making it plain, that in no way does the treaty singularly or collectively address either the people or the territory in any specific manner.

Most Respectfully,
R

Not!

You haven't been reading my posts.

(COMMENT)

Other than what was established by the powers invested in the Mandatory and the Allied Powers:

The international borders were defined by the Allied Powers; not the Treaty and not by virtue of the the inhabitants.

The Palestinians were not a distinct nationality; being separate in any fashion from other Arab within the central Levant, those in the surrounding administrative districts (later known as Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia).

The Palestinians were NOT citizens of Palestine. They were Arabs that became known as Palestinians, after the Allied Powers established the Mandate of Palestine over a territory they defined; and assumed responsibilities for legislative action, immigration, citizenship and naturalization.

Most Respectfully,
R

The international borders were defined by the Allied Powers; not the Treaty and not by virtue of the the inhabitants.

Bingo! That is what I have been saying all along.

All of the successor states were under mandate. The mandate was temporarily assigned to Palestine to render administrative assistance and advice until it could stand alone. It did not, could not alter borders or nationality.

The mandate and Palestine were separate entities. When the mandate left Palestine, Palestine was still there inside its international borders.

 

[toastman]

Tinmore, all of this discussion about the Treaty of Laussane began when I asked you when exactly did Palestine become a country.
The date you gave was the same date of the treaty. IS this correct ?

 

[Indeependent]

The time to raise such arguments in favor of Muslim-Arab Palestinian sovereignty over the whole of Old Palestine would have been May 14, 1948.

The first entry on a very long list of opportunities missed by the Palestinians since that date.

Far too late now.

Victories on the battlefield, political developments, land transfers (so-called legal and otherwise) and 66 years of custom and usage have set aside any such old (and, by now, entirely obsolete and inoperative) legal possibilities.

None of that old shit matters any longer.

Just as it didn't matter at the time when it might actually have done some good - the 1947-1949 timeframe.

The Jews of Old Palestine had their shit together.

The Muslims of Old Palestine didn't have a frigging clue.

And they - and their descendants - are paying the price for that ignorance and incompetency.

Nature has de-selected them.

Let's see...1.4 billion Muslims 800 million or so surrounding her and 5 million Israelis. Quite the contrary Nature has blessed with 1/4 of humanity and growing faster than any other Religion...

This conflict has just begun according the nature of time...Israel needs peace more than the Muslims.

Try reading Deuteronomy 7:7 and then get back to us on who needs to worry.

 

[toastman]

The time to raise such arguments in favor of Muslim-Arab Palestinian sovereignty over the whole of Old Palestine would have been May 14, 1948.

The first entry on a very long list of opportunities missed by the Palestinians since that date.

Far too late now.

Victories on the battlefield, political developments, land transfers (so-called legal and otherwise) and 66 years of custom and usage have set aside any such old (and, by now, entirely obsolete and inoperative) legal possibilities.

None of that old shit matters any longer.

Just as it didn't matter at the time when it might actually have done some good - the 1947-1949 timeframe.

The Jews of Old Palestine had their shit together.

The Muslims of Old Palestine didn't have a frigging clue.

And they - and their descendants - are paying the price for that ignorance and incompetency.

Nature has de-selected them.

Let's see...1.4 billion Muslims 800 million or so surrounding her and 5 million Israelis. Quite the contrary Nature has blessed with 1/4 of humanity and growing faster than any other Religion...

This conflict has just begun according the nature of time...Israel needs peace more than the Muslims.

Try reading Deuteronomy 7:7 and then get back to us on who needs to worry.

What doe Pbel think is going to happen?? That hundreds of millions of Arabs are going to gather at Israels borders and try to take over Israel?? LOL

 

[ForeverYoung436]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Then we must be in agreement.

Not!

You haven't been reading my posts.

(COMMENT)

Other than what was established by the powers invested in the Mandatory and the Allied Powers:

The international borders were defined by the Allied Powers; not the Treaty and not by virtue of the the inhabitants.

The Palestinians were not a distinct nationality; being separate in any fashion from other Arab within the central Levant, those in the surrounding administrative districts (later known as Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia).

The Palestinians were NOT citizens of Palestine. They were Arabs that became known as Palestinians, after the Allied Powers established the Mandate of Palestine over a territory they defined; and assumed responsibilities for legislative action, immigration, citizenship and naturalization.

Most Respectfully,
R

The international borders were defined by the Allied Powers; not the Treaty and not by virtue of the the inhabitants.

Bingo! That is what I have been saying all along.

All of the successor states were under mandate. The mandate was temporarily assigned to Palestine to render administrative assistance and advice until it could stand alone. It did not, could not alter borders or nationality.

The mandate and Palestine were separate entities. When the mandate left Palestine, Palestine was still there inside its international borders.

This is philosophical. It has nothing to do with reality.

 

[Phoenall]

The allied powers decided to break up the Ottoman Empire into successor states. They defined the borders of these new states. The nationality of the people inside those borders and their citizenship was determined by customary international law.

This is what they said about nationality.




However, as long as these territories were still under Turkish rule none of this could legally take place. The Treaty of Lausanne took those territories out from under Turkish rule allowing this succession of territory to the successor states to become legal. The treaty, itself, did not create any of these successor states.



Link to quotes
Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel

SO what it gave the original area of Palestine a national identity, and then took it away and replaced it with another national identity. This is what you refuse to see as it destroys your argument. Here is a map of the mandated land all known as Palestine

Just the pink and the blue is all we are interested in as that was pre 1925 Palestine, the Palestine you keep referring to when you use the treaty of Lausanne and the international borders. Along come's Britain and France and they start to carve up the land and give it to arab princes for their help in defeating Turkey. So after the treaty you so rely on Palestine was carved up and made into Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Jordan and parts handed to Saudi Arabia. This left the original area that was destined for the Jewish homeland. Once you understand that the vast majority of the Land had been given to arab muslims, with one small part for arab Christians then you see were the fallacies and fantasies are. Yes Palestinian nationality was founded and almost immediately removed by the creation of new nations in Palestine. The little part that was left had no treaty to give it a nationality, no treaty to give it borders, it had nothing until the UN came up with 181 and the GREEDY muslims wanted it all.

Not true. You have your timeline all mixed up.

Nope it is spot on as the treaty of Lausanne dealt with the area known as Palestine as it was being carved up for breakfast. It did not deal with the tiny little part that is now disputed land.

Nationality constitutes a legal bond that connects individuals with a specific territory, making them citizens of that territory. It is therefore imperative to examine the boundaries of Palestine in order to define the piece of land on which Palestinian nationality was established.

The eastern border of Palestine with Trans-Jordan was of particular significance.

Subsequently, on 16 September 1922, the Council of the League of Nations passed a resolution by which it approved a proposal submitted by Britain to exclude Trans-Jordan from the scope of Palestine’s territory.9 Ultimately, the border between Palestine and Trans-Jordan was fixed as suggested by Britain.

With regard to the northern border of Palestine, Britain and France (the occupying powers at the time, and later the mandatory powers over Syria and Lebanon respectively) signed an agreement which settled key aspects relating to the Palestinian-Syrian-Lebanese border (Paris, 23 December 1920).

The southwestern border of Palestine with Egypt dates back to the late 19th century. Originally, this border was drawn up on a de facto basis, as the Ottoman Empire recognized Egypt’s autonomy.27 Formally, however, two border agreements between the Ottoman Empire and Egypt were reached in 1906.

The separation of Egypt from Turkey (Palestine, in this instance), as of 5 November 1914, was ultimately recognized by the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne.

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel

read your own post and see were you constantly contradict yourself, you cant GIVE your borders to a non existent country.

And your source is the same one that I have shown is very biased, even racially motivated and inciting religious intolerance and violence.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

There is nothing in the Treaty that says anything about Palestine, or the Palestinians.

And the were. Palestine's international borders were defined.

The Palestinians were a distinct nationality.

The Palestinians were citizens of Palestine.

The Treaty of Lausanne was when these de facto characteristics became de jure.

I quoted treaties and laws that stated these points.

Then you said:



What do you have to prove that these documents are incorrect?

(COMMENT)

You quoted nothing form the Treaty that cites the borders of Palestine or the independent nationality of the Palestinians.

You cite a a research paper that reinterprets Part - Article 30 - SECTION II - NATIONALITY (Lausanne Treaty) which says "nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred." The territory of Palestine (not mentioned specifically in the treaty) was transferred to Allied control through the League of Nations Mandate System; NOT another "state." Under the Mandate of Palestine, the UK administered the immigration and naturalization laws.

Your pro-Palestinian source, Bulletin du Centre de recherche français à Jérusalem, research paper is attempting to manipulate the history and application of the facts. The Treaty is worded that way because it not only deals with three different Mandatories (UK, FR, RU), but several other countries and territories that were incorporated to other states. What was (at that time) considered the Mandate of Palestine had Orders in Council and the Mandate directive that specifically addressed the nationality issues.

When you ask, "What do you have to prove that these documents are incorrect?" What are you asking?

• There is nothing in the Treaty that corroborates that "Palestine's international borders were defined."
  • I challenge you to find one word concerning Palestine in the Treaty.
  • I challenge you to find one word from the Border Commission concerning Palestine.
• There is nothing in the Treaty that corroborates that "Palestinians were a distinct nationality."
  • I challenge you to point out the State to which the Territory under Mandate is transferred to make Article 30 applicable.
• There is nothing in the Treaty that corroborates "Palestinians were citizens of Palestine."
  • The indigenous population assumed the citizenship as directed by the criteria laid down by the respective mandatories. Nothing in the Treaty alters that.

You said: "I quoted treaties and laws that stated these points." You quoted a research paper that tries to re-interpret Article 30 which states:



What became know as Palestine, was placed in Mandate, and had already been in Mandate since 1920, and remained so well after the Treaty was signed and went into force. The interpretation that Palestinian Citizenship was conferred by treaty is 100% wrong. The same Allied Powers that established the League of Nations that wrote the Mandate and controlled the territory they named as Palestine, ALSO wrote the Treaty of Lausanne. They all match. The origins and Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine stem from the original authorities long before the Treaty. The Genesis of Citizenship in Israel Israel stem from its Declaration of Independence long after the Treaty.

There is nothing wrong with the Treaty, it is just fine. It is your interpretation of the Treaty I fine in error. You subscribe things to the Treaty that just are not there; in some desperate attempt to substantiate a "state" that never was until 1988.

Most Respectfully,
R

There is nothing in the Treaty that says anything about Palestine, or the Palestinians.

I never said there was.

Why the red herring?

Yet you are using that very statement to infer that there is. You are using flawed evidence to infer that the treaty of Lausanne is saying that the land under dispute was the only place known as Palestine before WW1. That the British and French mandates were not applicable to that disputed land because some islamonazi Palestinian says that it was a nation. He produces no concrete evidence or any mention of that disputed land declaring itself a nation but still insists that even though it is not mentioned by name it was allocated a nationality and an identity. I could do the same thing with the same evidence and show that the land is all Israel, and you would not be able to contradict my findings without first contradicting your source.

Your claim is about as water tight as a colander, and you are well aware of this fact. Now you are just trying to save face, and failing miserably.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Hummm,,, Not a "Red Herring."

There is nothing in the Treaty that says anything about Palestine, or the Palestinians.

I never said there was.

Why the red herring?

(COMMENT)

You are attempting to make a case; attributing qualities and characteristics that you claim come from the Treaty. I was merely making it plain, that in no way does the treaty singularly or collectively address either the people or the territory in any specific manner.

Most Respectfully,
R

here are his own words were he clearly says that the treaty of Lausanne states that Palestine became a nation with defined borders

And the were. Palestine's international borders were defined.

The Palestinians were a distinct nationality.

The Palestinians were citizens of Palestine.

The Treaty of Lausanne was when these de facto characteristics became de jure.

I quoted treaties and laws that stated these points

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Hummm,,, Not a "Red Herring."

I never said there was.

Why the red herring?

(COMMENT)

You are attempting to make a case; attributing qualities and characteristics that you claim come from the Treaty. I was merely making it plain, that in no way does the treaty singularly or collectively address either the people or the territory in any specific manner.

Most Respectfully,
R

Not!

You haven't been reading my posts.

From your posts
And the were. Palestine's international borders were defined.

The Palestinians were a distinct nationality.

The Palestinians were citizens of Palestine.

The Treaty of Lausanne was when these de facto characteristics became de jure.

I quoted treaties and laws that stated these points


So what were you saying again ?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Then we must be in agreement.

Not!

You haven't been reading my posts.

(COMMENT)

Other than what was established by the powers invested in the Mandatory and the Allied Powers:

The international borders were defined by the Allied Powers; not the Treaty and not by virtue of the the inhabitants.

The Palestinians were not a distinct nationality; being separate in any fashion from other Arab within the central Levant, those in the surrounding administrative districts (later known as Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia).

The Palestinians were NOT citizens of Palestine. They were Arabs that became known as Palestinians, after the Allied Powers established the Mandate of Palestine over a territory they defined; and assumed responsibilities for legislative action, immigration, citizenship and naturalization.

Most Respectfully,
R

The international borders were defined by the Allied Powers; not the Treaty and not by virtue of the the inhabitants.

Bingo! That is what I have been saying all along.

All of the successor states were under mandate. The mandate was temporarily assigned to Palestine to render administrative assistance and advice until it could stand alone. It did not, could not alter borders or nationality.

The mandate and Palestine were separate entities. When the mandate left Palestine, Palestine was still there inside its international borders.

So you agree that the disputed land has no international borders, no national identity and no nationality as the mandated powers did not give them any of these things.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Palestine was whatever the Allied Powers says it iwas.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Then we must be in agreement.

Not!

You haven't been reading my posts.

(COMMENT)

Other than what was established by the powers invested in the Mandatory and the Allied Powers:

The international borders were defined by the Allied Powers; not the Treaty and not by virtue of the the inhabitants.

The Palestinians were not a distinct nationality; being separate in any fashion from other Arab within the central Levant, those in the surrounding administrative districts (later known as Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia).

The Palestinians were NOT citizens of Palestine. They were Arabs that became known as Palestinians, after the Allied Powers established the Mandate of Palestine over a territory they defined; and assumed responsibilities for legislative action, immigration, citizenship and naturalization.

Most Respectfully,
R

The international borders were defined by the Allied Powers; not the Treaty and not by virtue of the the inhabitants.

Bingo! That is what I have been saying all along.

All of the successor states were under mandate. The mandate was temporarily assigned to Palestine to render administrative assistance and advice until it could stand alone. It did not, could not alter borders or nationality.

The mandate and Palestine were separate entities. When the mandate left Palestine, Palestine was still there inside its international borders.

(COMMENT)

Again, you are wrong. Understand, one more time, what it means when you say: "Palestine" (Back then it was not a country or a nationality beyond anything the Allied Powers said.)

The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.

SOURCE: The Palestine Order in Council

The word Palestine means the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies.

What happens when the mandate is terminate, "Palestine is terminated." They are one and the same thing.

OR, to correct your statement:

• When the mandate left Palestine, Palestine was no longer there inside its international borders.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

freedombecki, et al,

I had to give this some thought. Sorry for the tardiness.

I could be wrong, Rocco, but the reason things were specifically avoided may have been because of the history of killing in the region based strictly on religious and ethnic backgrounds which pushed Jewish natives in the region to Europe, where it was easier to kill Jewish people by proxy by planting bad stories about them and blaming them for things they did not do to the German people, at least not on a large scale. Additionally, one of their own led the fight to kill all the Jews in Europe and was given an enthusiastic welcome when he offered hundreds of thousands of his fellow muslims to fight for Hitler's causes in exchange for the promise that after all the Jews in Europe were assassinated, that Hitler would send his forces to the Middle East to go after all Jews.

(COMMENT)

I honestly do not know if this is a latent reason, or not. Surely, there were multiple reasons. And surely, some of the oppressors incorporated reasoning of their own, as personalized justification.

The committee that reinstated the rights of Jews in their own historic land of Israel was to hopefully stop the killing of a War that took one hundred million lives in conflicts involving heavy metal and poisonings. The UN was established to ensure this genocide of Jews would never crop up in the world again.

(COMMENT)

Clearly, the protection of the culture was a reason both before WWI and after WWII.

To keep bringing hate back into the picture with homicide bombings and surreptitious murders of Jews and Americans, who actually were instrumental in getting the people of the Middle East back on their feet with extracting fossil fuels, recalls the misinformation that preceded Germany's Krystalnacht which propelled World War II and showed Hitler he could take power by reinforcing the hatred of people taught from the cradle to hate people of other religious backgrounds.

It's a sad day to open a news page and read up on the dreadful things being done in a torn middle east and the constant lying that goes around when Jews defend their right to exist.

It's a sad day the mullahs and muftis have the power to spin one false witness against people they wish to get rid of and have so many believers around the globe, using prideful religion as a reason to kill Jewish people.

Genocidal politics abolish peaceful negotiations like nothing else. How many wars to we have to fight to stop it?

(COMMENT)

Important food for thought.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Palestine was whatever the Allied Powers says it iwas.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Then we must be in agreement.


(COMMENT)

Other than what was established by the powers invested in the Mandatory and the Allied Powers:

The international borders were defined by the Allied Powers; not the Treaty and not by virtue of the the inhabitants.

The Palestinians were not a distinct nationality; being separate in any fashion from other Arab within the central Levant, those in the surrounding administrative districts (later known as Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia).

The Palestinians were NOT citizens of Palestine. They were Arabs that became known as Palestinians, after the Allied Powers established the Mandate of Palestine over a territory they defined; and assumed responsibilities for legislative action, immigration, citizenship and naturalization.

Most Respectfully,
R

Bingo! That is what I have been saying all along.

All of the successor states were under mandate. The mandate was temporarily assigned to Palestine to render administrative assistance and advice until it could stand alone. It did not, could not alter borders or nationality.

The mandate and Palestine were separate entities. When the mandate left Palestine, Palestine was still there inside its international borders.

(COMMENT)

Again, you are wrong. Understand, one more time, what it means when you say: "Palestine" (Back then it was not a country or a nationality beyond anything the Allied Powers said.)

The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.

SOURCE: The Palestine Order in Council

The word Palestine means the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies.

What happens when the mandate is terminate, "Palestine is terminated." They are one and the same thing.

OR, to correct your statement:

• When the mandate left Palestine, Palestine was no longer there inside its international borders.

Most Respectfully,
R

When the mandate left Palestine, Palestine was no longer there inside its international borders.

And this is EXACTLY what Tinmore needs to understand. The entire Basis of his claims was that Palestine was STILL THERE after the Mandate left.

 

[pbel]

Let's see...1.4 billion Muslims 800 million or so surrounding her and 5 million Israelis. Quite the contrary Nature has blessed with 1/4 of humanity and growing faster than any other Religion...

This conflict has just begun according the nature of time...Israel needs peace more than the Muslims.

Try reading Deuteronomy 7:7 and then get back to us on who needs to worry.

What doe Pbel think is going to happen?? That hundreds of millions of Arabs are going to gather at Israels borders and try to take over Israel?? LOL

Toast, If that happened, Israel would run out of bullets and lose...No, wars of attrition are a slow process where Demographics and resistance and little skirmishes wear out the defenders of their tiny fortress...The constant danger of attack is very expensive in money and the cost of blood makes people leave the danger...

The Superpowers of the past have all left not because they wanted to, but for the cost of constant resistance.

The ONLY thing that can stop this grinding process is acceptance...Jews and Muslims have shared the same space for thousands of years. Peace for two or 3 generations and positive trade with the ME will gain the acceptance Israel needs...Look at the Arabs within Israel's present borders...All relatively happy...A little prosperity goes a long way.

Group dynamics are universal and predictable.