Shusha
Gold Member
- Dec 14, 2015
- 14,976
- 3,033
- 290
- Thread starter
- #261
Can you please explain why you think that there are no borders?
I'm curious, because when I was in Jordan there was definitely a border crossing into Israel, a full, and legal border crossing. I know, I used it!
So, I am really interested to try and understand why you believe there are no borders...
Tinmore's argument is interesting because he often mixes completely correct legal concepts with bizarre ones. For example:
There is no border around Gaza. Only the green line. You would think there is a border when you cross it because it is under military control. Israel controls the border between Jordan and the West Bank, (Palestinian occupied territory) but you would think you are entering Israel. Similarly, going from the West Bank into Israel there is a "border crossing" even though there is only the green line. The green line is not a political or territorial border between countries....
This argument is entirely correct. The Green Line (1949 Armistice Line) has absolutely no legal standing as a border. It is NOT a border. Never has been and is explicitly prohibited from being a border. The only thing that can create a border is a treaty between nations delineating a border. And that has not happened within Palestine. Tinmore is perfectly correct when he says that "Palestine" is one sovereign territorial unit.
But where he goes from there is where it gets weird (and wrong).
He claims that the State of Palestine was created in 1922/23 by the Treaty of Lausanne. And then confirmed in 1925 with the Citizenship Order. He claims, therefore, that the State of Palestine ALREADY existed, prior to Israel coming into being. He claims, therefore, that Israel is an illegal entity built within the previously delineated borders of the existing State of Palestine. And since Israel did not declare borders with her Independence -- she has none. That's his argument.
Here is why he is wrong:
1. The Treaty of Lausanne did not create States -- it only delineated territory under the British and the French Mandates and gave labels to geographical territories.
2. The criteria for a State are: a permanent population, a defined territory, a government and the capacity to enter into relations with other States. In 1923 "Palestine" did not meet the criteria of a state, therefore there was no state. (That was the ENTIRE point of the Mandate -- to govern the territories in question until they had the ability to "stand alone".)
3. All of the states which were previously under the Mandate came into being AS they met the criteria listed above. Iraq in 1932, Lebanon in 1943, Syria and Jordan in 1946. "Palestine" ALSO met that criteria in 1948 and declared independence. That created the State of Israel (in Palestine). It was the same procedure for each. Each gained independence over the entirety of the territory and each had border with other States.
4. Even if you want to argue that all those States came into being in 1923, instead of 10-25 years later, but were still held "in trust" by the Mandate -- this does not prohibit or prevent Israel from existing. The concept would apply equally to all the States.
5. The PROOF that Israel became a State at that time is in the treaties and relations Israel had (has) with other States. Peace treaties with Jordan and Egypt (delineating borders); admission and recognition in the UN, diplomatic relations with other States, etc, etc, etc. There is no State of Palestine which demonstrates its capacity -- in 1922 or 1948 or well into the 1990s even -- to enter into relations with other States.