IDF murders children playing on beach

[montelatici]

P F Tinmore, et al,

(COMMENT)
Establishing ownership via private and civil real estate processes are altogether different from establishing sovereignty through the right of self-determination.

Indeed, but Israeli propagandists are always bringing the lack of land ownership of the Palestinians as proof that they have no rights.

My point has always been that the rights belong to the habitual residents.

BTW, have you checked out my link yet?

UNHCR - Draft Articles on Nationality of Natural Persons in relation to the Succession of States with commentaries 1999

Article 4. Prevention of statelessness
States concerned shall take all appropriate meas-
ures to prevent persons who, on the date of the succes-
sion of States, had the nationality of the predecessor
State from becoming stateless as a result of such
succession.

(COMMENT)

You will notice that the first word in the title is "DRAFT." This DRAFT is over a decade old --- very old and unlikely to achieve adoption any time in the near future. It has no veracity or standing in this issue. It is simply one of many law concepts that was suggested and not accepted. But more importantly, even if this was a law ---- made law in 1999, a decade after the State of Palestine Independence; 3 decades after the Six-Day War; a half century after the Israeli War of Independence and the adoption of the Partition Plan; and 8 decades after the Allied Powers at San Remo decided to reconstitute the Jewish National Home. (It is still not law; because the DRAFT doesn't adequately reflect how it works in the real-world; at least not yet.)

Most Respectfully,
R

This may be 1999 but the legal concepts are a hundred years old. They are attempting to define and refine old principles. So don't try to imply that these are new ideas.

In international law, when a state is dissolved and new states are established, “the population follows the change of sovereignty in matters of nationality.”5 As a rule, therefore, citizens of the former state should automatically acquire the nationality of the successor state in which they had already been residing.

Nationality constitutes a legal bond that connects individuals with a specific territory, making them citizens of that territory.

Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:

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

The Palestinians are stateless due to politics not law. Or, I would say, due to the violation of law.

What violation of law was that? Resisting colonization? Is there a law to that effect?

 

[Slyhunter]

P F Tinmore, et al,

(COMMENT)
Establishing ownership via private and civil real estate processes are altogether different from establishing sovereignty through the right of self-determination.

Indeed, but Israeli propagandists are always bringing the lack of land ownership of the Palestinians as proof that they have no rights.

My point has always been that the rights belong to the habitual residents.

BTW, have you checked out my link yet?

UNHCR - Draft Articles on Nationality of Natural Persons in relation to the Succession of States with commentaries 1999

Article 4. Prevention of statelessness
States concerned shall take all appropriate meas-
ures to prevent persons who, on the date of the succes-
sion of States, had the nationality of the predecessor
State from becoming stateless as a result of such
succession.

(COMMENT)

You will notice that the first word in the title is "DRAFT." This DRAFT is over a decade old --- very old and unlikely to achieve adoption any time in the near future. It has no veracity or standing in this issue. It is simply one of many law concepts that was suggested and not accepted. But more importantly, even if this was a law ---- made law in 1999, a decade after the State of Palestine Independence; 3 decades after the Six-Day War; a half century after the Israeli War of Independence and the adoption of the Partition Plan; and 8 decades after the Allied Powers at San Remo decided to reconstitute the Jewish National Home. (It is still not law; because the DRAFT doesn't adequately reflect how it works in the real-world; at least not yet.)

Most Respectfully,
R

This may be 1999 but the legal concepts are a hundred years old. They are attempting to define and refine old principles. So don't try to imply that these are new ideas.

In international law, when a state is dissolved and new states are established, “the population follows the change of sovereignty in matters of nationality.”5 As a rule, therefore, citizens of the former state should automatically acquire the nationality of the successor state in which they had already been residing.

Nationality constitutes a legal bond that connects individuals with a specific territory, making them citizens of that territory.

Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:

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

The Palestinians are stateless due to politics not law. Or, I would say, due to the violation of law.

What violation of law was that? Resisting colonization? Is there a law to that effect?

If Canada invaded Illinois and took possession of it the US would have a choice, give up the land or fight for it back. If they choose to give up the land, Like the Lebanese and Egyptians did then it belongs to the victor and so do all it's inhabitants.

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

(COMMENT)
Establishing ownership via private and civil real estate processes are altogether different from establishing sovereignty through the right of self-determination.

Indeed, but Israeli propagandists are always bringing the lack of land ownership of the Palestinians as proof that they have no rights.

My point has always been that the rights belong to the habitual residents.

BTW, have you checked out my link yet?

UNHCR - Draft Articles on Nationality of Natural Persons in relation to the Succession of States with commentaries 1999

Article 4. Prevention of statelessness
States concerned shall take all appropriate meas-
ures to prevent persons who, on the date of the succes-
sion of States, had the nationality of the predecessor
State from becoming stateless as a result of such
succession.

(COMMENT)

You will notice that the first word in the title is "DRAFT." This DRAFT is over a decade old --- very old and unlikely to achieve adoption any time in the near future. It has no veracity or standing in this issue. It is simply one of many law concepts that was suggested and not accepted. But more importantly, even if this was a law ---- made law in 1999, a decade after the State of Palestine Independence; 3 decades after the Six-Day War; a half century after the Israeli War of Independence and the adoption of the Partition Plan; and 8 decades after the Allied Powers at San Remo decided to reconstitute the Jewish National Home. (It is still not law; because the DRAFT doesn't adequately reflect how it works in the real-world; at least not yet.)

Most Respectfully,
R
This may be 1999 but the legal concepts are a hundred years old. They are attempting to define and refine old principles. So don't try to imply that these are new ideas.

In international law, when a state is dissolved and new states are established, “the population follows the change of sovereignty in matters of nationality.”5 As a rule, therefore, citizens of the former state should automatically acquire the nationality of the successor state in which they had already been residing.

Nationality constitutes a legal bond that connects individuals with a specific territory, making them citizens of that territory.

Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:
​

Hamas wasn't imposed on them by foreigners... You need to take a break from reading Palestinian propaganda and come to the realization that Hamas is one of, if not the biggest problem that the Palestinians have.

 

[montelatici]

P F Tinmore, et al,

(COMMENT)
Establishing ownership via private and civil real estate processes are altogether different from establishing sovereignty through the right of self-determination.

Indeed, but Israeli propagandists are always bringing the lack of land ownership of the Palestinians as proof that they have no rights.

My point has always been that the rights belong to the habitual residents.

BTW, have you checked out my link yet?

UNHCR - Draft Articles on Nationality of Natural Persons in relation to the Succession of States with commentaries 1999

Article 4. Prevention of statelessness
States concerned shall take all appropriate meas-
ures to prevent persons who, on the date of the succes-
sion of States, had the nationality of the predecessor
State from becoming stateless as a result of such
succession.

(COMMENT)

You will notice that the first word in the title is "DRAFT." This DRAFT is over a decade old --- very old and unlikely to achieve adoption any time in the near future. It has no veracity or standing in this issue. It is simply one of many law concepts that was suggested and not accepted. But more importantly, even if this was a law ---- made law in 1999, a decade after the State of Palestine Independence; 3 decades after the Six-Day War; a half century after the Israeli War of Independence and the adoption of the Partition Plan; and 8 decades after the Allied Powers at San Remo decided to reconstitute the Jewish National Home. (It is still not law; because the DRAFT doesn't adequately reflect how it works in the real-world; at least not yet.)

Most Respectfully,
R

This may be 1999 but the legal concepts are a hundred years old. They are attempting to define and refine old principles. So don't try to imply that these are new ideas.

In international law, when a state is dissolved and new states are established, “the population follows the change of sovereignty in matters of nationality.”5 As a rule, therefore, citizens of the former state should automatically acquire the nationality of the successor state in which they had already been residing.

Nationality constitutes a legal bond that connects individuals with a specific territory, making them citizens of that territory.

Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:

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

The Palestinians are stateless due to politics not law. Or, I would say, due to the violation of law.

What violation of law was that? Resisting colonization? Is there a law to that effect?

If Canada invaded Illinois and took possession of it the US would have a choice, give up the land or fight for it back. If they choose to give up the land, Like the Lebanese and Egyptians did then it belongs to the victor and so do all it's inhabitants.

What Lebanese and Egyptians. They had nothing to do with it.

By the way your contention runs counter to the Charter of the United Nations.

 

[Slyhunter]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Indeed, but Israeli propagandists are always bringing the lack of land ownership of the Palestinians as proof that they have no rights.

My point has always been that the rights belong to the habitual residents.

BTW, have you checked out my link yet?

UNHCR - Draft Articles on Nationality of Natural Persons in relation to the Succession of States with commentaries 1999

Article 4. Prevention of statelessness
States concerned shall take all appropriate meas-
ures to prevent persons who, on the date of the succes-
sion of States, had the nationality of the predecessor
State from becoming stateless as a result of such
succession.

(COMMENT)

You will notice that the first word in the title is "DRAFT." This DRAFT is over a decade old --- very old and unlikely to achieve adoption any time in the near future. It has no veracity or standing in this issue. It is simply one of many law concepts that was suggested and not accepted. But more importantly, even if this was a law ---- made law in 1999, a decade after the State of Palestine Independence; 3 decades after the Six-Day War; a half century after the Israeli War of Independence and the adoption of the Partition Plan; and 8 decades after the Allied Powers at San Remo decided to reconstitute the Jewish National Home. (It is still not law; because the DRAFT doesn't adequately reflect how it works in the real-world; at least not yet.)

Most Respectfully,
R

This may be 1999 but the legal concepts are a hundred years old. They are attempting to define and refine old principles. So don't try to imply that these are new ideas.

In international law, when a state is dissolved and new states are established, “the population follows the change of sovereignty in matters of nationality.”5 As a rule, therefore, citizens of the former state should automatically acquire the nationality of the successor state in which they had already been residing.

Nationality constitutes a legal bond that connects individuals with a specific territory, making them citizens of that territory.

Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:

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

The Palestinians are stateless due to politics not law. Or, I would say, due to the violation of law.

What violation of law was that? Resisting colonization? Is there a law to that effect?

If Canada invaded Illinois and took possession of it the US would have a choice, give up the land or fight for it back. If they choose to give up the land, Like the Lebanese and Egyptians did then it belongs to the victor and so do all it's inhabitants.

What Lebanese and Egyptians. They had nothing to do with it.

By the way your contention runs counter to the Charter of the United Nations.

**** the UN.

2. I believe the golan heights or whatever used to belong to Egypt before they gave it up and the west bank used to belong to Lebanon before they also gave up the land.

 

[montelatici]

Boy, you are certainly a wise Zionist. You have all your facts in order.

 

[Slyhunter]

Boy, you are certainly a wise Zionist. You have all your facts in order.

Labels, I am who I am.

Took another look at map Golan heights belonged to Egypt before they threatened Israel with extermination. They choose not to retain possession of it after they lost their war.

The same can be said for the West bank and Lebanon and Syria.

I don't have perfect memory but I do have google.

 

[montelatici]

Boy, you are certainly a wise Zionist. You have all your facts in order.

Labels, I am who I am.

Took another look at map Golan heights belonged to Egypt before they threatened Israel with extermination. They choose not to retain possession of it after they lost their war.

The same can be said for the West bank and Lebanon and Syria.

I don't have perfect memory but I do have google.

I am devastated. You are a cornucopia of facts.

 

[aris2chat]

IMEMC? Really? And pressTV is your bible as well?
You know what this is about, the crime report to the UN about gaza.
Nice attempt at distraction.
Bravo

 

[Billo_Really]

1.it wasn't an air strike.

What was it? A drive by shooting? A bunch of Israeli chollah's in an Impala and some I-9's?

2.attacking Hamas facilities is not only a legitimate act by international law but a blessed step in eradicating violent world terrorism.

Murdering children playing soccer on the beach, is a legitimate act?

3.you the one want entire Israel to be nuked, that is the definition of sick - needless to say hypocrite.

That's because you murder children playing soccer on the beach. That's not how a humane society acts.

4.I didn't do any of this, but you insists on saying it was me, there you proved us all that it's not about the actions one take - with zero justification you see all Israelis as one that you would gladly see dead.

The day you stop defending that shit, will be the day I stop blaming you.

 

[aris2chat]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Indeed, but Israeli propagandists are always bringing the lack of land ownership of the Palestinians as proof that they have no rights.

My point has always been that the rights belong to the habitual residents.

BTW, have you checked out my link yet?

UNHCR - Draft Articles on Nationality of Natural Persons in relation to the Succession of States with commentaries 1999

Article 4. Prevention of statelessness
States concerned shall take all appropriate meas-
ures to prevent persons who, on the date of the succes-
sion of States, had the nationality of the predecessor
State from becoming stateless as a result of such
succession.

(COMMENT)

You will notice that the first word in the title is "DRAFT." This DRAFT is over a decade old --- very old and unlikely to achieve adoption any time in the near future. It has no veracity or standing in this issue. It is simply one of many law concepts that was suggested and not accepted. But more importantly, even if this was a law ---- made law in 1999, a decade after the State of Palestine Independence; 3 decades after the Six-Day War; a half century after the Israeli War of Independence and the adoption of the Partition Plan; and 8 decades after the Allied Powers at San Remo decided to reconstitute the Jewish National Home. (It is still not law; because the DRAFT doesn't adequately reflect how it works in the real-world; at least not yet.)

Most Respectfully,
R

This may be 1999 but the legal concepts are a hundred years old. They are attempting to define and refine old principles. So don't try to imply that these are new ideas.

In international law, when a state is dissolved and new states are established, “the population follows the change of sovereignty in matters of nationality.”5 As a rule, therefore, citizens of the former state should automatically acquire the nationality of the successor state in which they had already been residing.

Nationality constitutes a legal bond that connects individuals with a specific territory, making them citizens of that territory.

Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:

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

The Palestinians are stateless due to politics not law. Or, I would say, due to the violation of law.

They are stateless because of the ignorance of their government.

Indeed, and they have never been allowed to choose their own government. It has always been imposed on them by foreigners.

Must suck to be them. They should go back to their own countries; Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, etc.

Lebanon certainly does not want them nor does it have the place or resources to take them. They went through decades of hell because of them and lost far too many good leaders.

Let Dubai build them their own island in the middle of the Indian Ocean.

Syria is killing them, and killed them in Lebanon. Egypt gave them a chance but no longer trusts them. Even Iraq does not trust them after they sided with Saddam. Jordan has more then they need already, 40% of their population.

If only they had done more to make friends instead of enemies. They might even have had their own state long ago if they had not misbehaved.

 

[Phoenall]

montelatici, et al,

Fortunately, that is an irrelevant question. We are not dealing with the racial issues of the Boers and South African politics. We are talking about the Arab Palestinians that took a solemn oath to further Jihad.

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinian people represent a clear and present danger to the safety, security and sovereignty of the State of Israel and it citizenry. In the last seven decades, that Arab Palestinian has promoted violence and maintained the policy that "Jihad becomes the individual duty of every Moslem" and that "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad."

It is what it is. Every single week we hear the voice of the Hostile Arab Palestinians attempt to provoke or encourage and threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression.

Most Respectfully,
R

Well, the hostile European colonists went to Palestine to eliminate and/or evict the people living in Palestine, should the Christians and Muslims not try to regain their land and homes?

How about posting some evidence of your racist claims then freddy boy, as you seem to be ignoring these requests. As for their homes they had none or they would have produce title deeds by now

False argument.

A house is a piece of property.

A home is where people live.

They do not necessarily coincide.

No a valid argument as it shows that they had no property and are lying about living there. How can some 20 year old claim to have lived in Israel prior to 1967 ?

Israelis don't own any land either. So can we say that they have no rights to Israel.

93% of the land in Israel is in the public domain; that is, either property of the state, the Jewish National Fund (JNF) or the Development Authority.
The Israel Land Authority (ILA) is the government agency responsible for managing this land which comprises 4,820,500 acres (19,508,000 dunams). "Ownership" of real estate in Israel usually means leasing rights from the ILA for 49 or 98 years.

Israel Land Authority​

It is said that Palestinians did not own land so they have no right to a state.

Well...???

Only you are saying that tinman, what I am saying is the Palestinians have no right to land outside of Palestine without proof of prior ownership.
As for Israel the land is state owned as originally planned by the LoN mandate, so the Israeli's through the state do own the land giving them legal rights to the land.

 

[Phoenall]

1.it wasn't an air strike.

What was it? A drive by shooting? A bunch of Israeli chollah's in an Impala and some I-9's?

2.attacking Hamas facilities is not only a legitimate act by international law but a blessed step in eradicating violent world terrorism.

Murdering children playing soccer on the beach, is a legitimate act?

3.you the one want entire Israel to be nuked, that is the definition of sick - needless to say hypocrite.

That's because you murder children playing soccer on the beach. That's not how a humane society acts.

4.I didn't do any of this, but you insists on saying it was me, there you proved us all that it's not about the actions one take - with zero justification you see all Israelis as one that you would gladly see dead.

The day you stop defending that shit, will be the day I stop blaming you.

Try reading the facts and you will see what happened, or will that go against your Jew Hatred

Where is your evidence of this murder, and why haven't you put the matter in the hands of the ICC/ICJ or Israeli judicial system.

Again prove it or stop letting your Jew hatred rule your life.

The day you stop acting like a NAZI JEW HATER is the day I stop calling you a NAZI JEW HATER

 

[Phoenall]

(OFF-TOPIC)
P F Tinmore, et al,

Again we slid off-track here.

Israelis don't own any land either. So can we say that they have no rights to Israel.

93% of the land in Israel is in the public domain; that is, either property of the state, the Jewish National Fund (JNF) or the Development Authority.
The Israel Land Authority (ILA) is the government agency responsible for managing this land which comprises 4,820,500 acres (19,508,000 dunams). "Ownership" of real estate in Israel usually means leasing rights from the ILA for 49 or 98 years.

Israel Land Authority​

It is said that Palestinians did not own land so they have no right to a state.

Well...???

(COMMENT)

Establishing ownership via private and civil real estate processes are altogether different from establishing sovereignty through the right of self-determination.

Most Respectfully,
R

Indeed, but Israeli propagandists are always bringing the lack of land ownership of the Palestinians as proof that they have no rights.

My point has always been that the rights belong to the habitual residents.

BTW, have you checked out my link yet?

UNHCR - Draft Articles on Nationality of Natural Persons in relation to the Succession of States with commentaries 1999

Article 4. Prevention of statelessness
States concerned shall take all appropriate meas-
ures to prevent persons who, on the date of the succes-
sion of States, had the nationality of the predecessor
State from becoming stateless as a result of such
succession.

So how did this have any bearing on pre 1999 incidents. The Palestinians declared independence in 1988 and acquired their state, it was then up to them to take the next step and show self determination and negotiate peace and mutual borders with their neighbours.
28 Years after declaring independence they are still not standing on their own feet or showing any real free determination

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

(COMMENT)
Establishing ownership via private and civil real estate processes are altogether different from establishing sovereignty through the right of self-determination.

Indeed, but Israeli propagandists are always bringing the lack of land ownership of the Palestinians as proof that they have no rights.

My point has always been that the rights belong to the habitual residents.

BTW, have you checked out my link yet?

UNHCR - Draft Articles on Nationality of Natural Persons in relation to the Succession of States with commentaries 1999

Article 4. Prevention of statelessness
States concerned shall take all appropriate meas-
ures to prevent persons who, on the date of the succes-
sion of States, had the nationality of the predecessor
State from becoming stateless as a result of such
succession.

(COMMENT)

You will notice that the first word in the title is "DRAFT." This DRAFT is over a decade old --- very old and unlikely to achieve adoption any time in the near future. It has no veracity or standing in this issue. It is simply one of many law concepts that was suggested and not accepted. But more importantly, even if this was a law ---- made law in 1999, a decade after the State of Palestine Independence; 3 decades after the Six-Day War; a half century after the Israeli War of Independence and the adoption of the Partition Plan; and 8 decades after the Allied Powers at San Remo decided to reconstitute the Jewish National Home. (It is still not law; because the DRAFT doesn't adequately reflect how it works in the real-world; at least not yet.)

Most Respectfully,
R

This may be 1999 but the legal concepts are a hundred years old. They are attempting to define and refine old principles. So don't try to imply that these are new ideas.

In international law, when a state is dissolved and new states are established, “the population follows the change of sovereignty in matters of nationality.”5 As a rule, therefore, citizens of the former state should automatically acquire the nationality of the successor state in which they had already been residing.

Nationality constitutes a legal bond that connects individuals with a specific territory, making them citizens of that territory.

Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:

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

The Palestinians are stateless due to politics not law. Or, I would say, due to the violation of law.

No such international law exists.

Including Jews that lived in the west bank ?

Correct and no state existed in Jewish Palestine until 1948 when the Jews declared independence, unless you have a legal document proving otherwise.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

(COMMENT)
Establishing ownership via private and civil real estate processes are altogether different from establishing sovereignty through the right of self-determination.

Indeed, but Israeli propagandists are always bringing the lack of land ownership of the Palestinians as proof that they have no rights.

My point has always been that the rights belong to the habitual residents.

BTW, have you checked out my link yet?

UNHCR - Draft Articles on Nationality of Natural Persons in relation to the Succession of States with commentaries 1999

Article 4. Prevention of statelessness
States concerned shall take all appropriate meas-
ures to prevent persons who, on the date of the succes-
sion of States, had the nationality of the predecessor
State from becoming stateless as a result of such
succession.

(COMMENT)

You will notice that the first word in the title is "DRAFT." This DRAFT is over a decade old --- very old and unlikely to achieve adoption any time in the near future. It has no veracity or standing in this issue. It is simply one of many law concepts that was suggested and not accepted. But more importantly, even if this was a law ---- made law in 1999, a decade after the State of Palestine Independence; 3 decades after the Six-Day War; a half century after the Israeli War of Independence and the adoption of the Partition Plan; and 8 decades after the Allied Powers at San Remo decided to reconstitute the Jewish National Home. (It is still not law; because the DRAFT doesn't adequately reflect how it works in the real-world; at least not yet.)

Most Respectfully,
R

This may be 1999 but the legal concepts are a hundred years old. They are attempting to define and refine old principles. So don't try to imply that these are new ideas.

In international law, when a state is dissolved and new states are established, “the population follows the change of sovereignty in matters of nationality.”5 As a rule, therefore, citizens of the former state should automatically acquire the nationality of the successor state in which they had already been residing.

Nationality constitutes a legal bond that connects individuals with a specific territory, making them citizens of that territory.

Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:

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

The Palestinians are stateless due to politics not law. Or, I would say, due to the violation of law.

They are stateless because of the ignorance of their government.

Indeed, and they have never been allowed to choose their own government. It has always been imposed on them by foreigners.

EVIDENCE ?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

(COMMENT)
Establishing ownership via private and civil real estate processes are altogether different from establishing sovereignty through the right of self-determination.

Indeed, but Israeli propagandists are always bringing the lack of land ownership of the Palestinians as proof that they have no rights.

My point has always been that the rights belong to the habitual residents.

BTW, have you checked out my link yet?

UNHCR - Draft Articles on Nationality of Natural Persons in relation to the Succession of States with commentaries 1999

Article 4. Prevention of statelessness
States concerned shall take all appropriate meas-
ures to prevent persons who, on the date of the succes-
sion of States, had the nationality of the predecessor
State from becoming stateless as a result of such
succession.

(COMMENT)

You will notice that the first word in the title is "DRAFT." This DRAFT is over a decade old --- very old and unlikely to achieve adoption any time in the near future. It has no veracity or standing in this issue. It is simply one of many law concepts that was suggested and not accepted. But more importantly, even if this was a law ---- made law in 1999, a decade after the State of Palestine Independence; 3 decades after the Six-Day War; a half century after the Israeli War of Independence and the adoption of the Partition Plan; and 8 decades after the Allied Powers at San Remo decided to reconstitute the Jewish National Home. (It is still not law; because the DRAFT doesn't adequately reflect how it works in the real-world; at least not yet.)

Most Respectfully,
R

This may be 1999 but the legal concepts are a hundred years old. They are attempting to define and refine old principles. So don't try to imply that these are new ideas.

In international law, when a state is dissolved and new states are established, “the population follows the change of sovereignty in matters of nationality.”5 As a rule, therefore, citizens of the former state should automatically acquire the nationality of the successor state in which they had already been residing.

Nationality constitutes a legal bond that connects individuals with a specific territory, making them citizens of that territory.

Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:

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

The Palestinians are stateless due to politics not law. Or, I would say, due to the violation of law.

They are stateless because of the ignorance of their government.

They are stateless because they were too ignorant to form and hold a government, until it was too late - decades too late.

You snooze, you lose.

They formed a government in 1988 and then decided that the problems were too great to overcome znd never took the next step. They realised that they would lose all the UN money and aid, all the foreign aid and all the support they have so never took the next step. That is why they are in the situation they are in now.

 

[Kondor3]

...They formed a government in 1988 and then decided that the problems were too great to overcome znd never took the next step. They realised that they would lose all the UN money and aid, all the foreign aid and all the support they have so never took the next step. That is why they are in the situation they are in now.

1988 - 1948 = 40 years too late.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

(COMMENT)
Establishing ownership via private and civil real estate processes are altogether different from establishing sovereignty through the right of self-determination.

Indeed, but Israeli propagandists are always bringing the lack of land ownership of the Palestinians as proof that they have no rights.

My point has always been that the rights belong to the habitual residents.

BTW, have you checked out my link yet?

UNHCR - Draft Articles on Nationality of Natural Persons in relation to the Succession of States with commentaries 1999

Article 4. Prevention of statelessness
States concerned shall take all appropriate meas-
ures to prevent persons who, on the date of the succes-
sion of States, had the nationality of the predecessor
State from becoming stateless as a result of such
succession.

(COMMENT)

You will notice that the first word in the title is "DRAFT." This DRAFT is over a decade old --- very old and unlikely to achieve adoption any time in the near future. It has no veracity or standing in this issue. It is simply one of many law concepts that was suggested and not accepted. But more importantly, even if this was a law ---- made law in 1999, a decade after the State of Palestine Independence; 3 decades after the Six-Day War; a half century after the Israeli War of Independence and the adoption of the Partition Plan; and 8 decades after the Allied Powers at San Remo decided to reconstitute the Jewish National Home. (It is still not law; because the DRAFT doesn't adequately reflect how it works in the real-world; at least not yet.)

Most Respectfully,
R

This may be 1999 but the legal concepts are a hundred years old. They are attempting to define and refine old principles. So don't try to imply that these are new ideas.

In international law, when a state is dissolved and new states are established, “the population follows the change of sovereignty in matters of nationality.”5 As a rule, therefore, citizens of the former state should automatically acquire the nationality of the successor state in which they had already been residing.

Nationality constitutes a legal bond that connects individuals with a specific territory, making them citizens of that territory.

Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:

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

The Palestinians are stateless due to politics not law. Or, I would say, due to the violation of law.

What violation of law was that? Resisting colonization? Is there a law to that effect?

Learn to read English dumbo as there was no mention of any law

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Indeed, but Israeli propagandists are always bringing the lack of land ownership of the Palestinians as proof that they have no rights.

My point has always been that the rights belong to the habitual residents.

BTW, have you checked out my link yet?

UNHCR - Draft Articles on Nationality of Natural Persons in relation to the Succession of States with commentaries 1999

Article 4. Prevention of statelessness
States concerned shall take all appropriate meas-
ures to prevent persons who, on the date of the succes-
sion of States, had the nationality of the predecessor
State from becoming stateless as a result of such
succession.

(COMMENT)

You will notice that the first word in the title is "DRAFT." This DRAFT is over a decade old --- very old and unlikely to achieve adoption any time in the near future. It has no veracity or standing in this issue. It is simply one of many law concepts that was suggested and not accepted. But more importantly, even if this was a law ---- made law in 1999, a decade after the State of Palestine Independence; 3 decades after the Six-Day War; a half century after the Israeli War of Independence and the adoption of the Partition Plan; and 8 decades after the Allied Powers at San Remo decided to reconstitute the Jewish National Home. (It is still not law; because the DRAFT doesn't adequately reflect how it works in the real-world; at least not yet.)

Most Respectfully,
R

This may be 1999 but the legal concepts are a hundred years old. They are attempting to define and refine old principles. So don't try to imply that these are new ideas.

In international law, when a state is dissolved and new states are established, “the population follows the change of sovereignty in matters of nationality.”5 As a rule, therefore, citizens of the former state should automatically acquire the nationality of the successor state in which they had already been residing.

Nationality constitutes a legal bond that connects individuals with a specific territory, making them citizens of that territory.

Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:

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

The Palestinians are stateless due to politics not law. Or, I would say, due to the violation of law.

What violation of law was that? Resisting colonization? Is there a law to that effect?

If Canada invaded Illinois and took possession of it the US would have a choice, give up the land or fight for it back. If they choose to give up the land, Like the Lebanese and Egyptians did then it belongs to the victor and so do all it's inhabitants.

What Lebanese and Egyptians. They had nothing to do with it.

By the way your contention runs counter to the Charter of the United Nations.

They did when they fought against the Jews in 1948.

Not around until 1945, and does not apply to land given up willingly