Israel's Legal Right To Exist

[Shusha]

That is not another "claim." That is history. How do you post here and know so little?

Oh for the love of all that is holy. Do you not understand debate? You present a claim. (Israel has no legal status; Palestine became a State in 1924). And then you defend that claim by providing supporting arguments. Then I challenge those arguments and offer counter-arguments.

Jeez.

 

[P F Tinmore]

That is not another "claim." That is history. How do you post here and know so little?

Oh for the love of all that is holy. Do you not understand debate? You present a claim. (Israel has no legal status; Palestine became a State in 1924). And then you defend that claim by providing supporting arguments. Then I challenge those arguments and offer counter-arguments.

Jeez.

Benoliel and Perry attempt to refute my argument that the statehood asserted by the Palestine National Council in 1988 was not of a new state, but of a state that already existed. They challenge my position that Palestine, as a Class A mandate under the League of Nations, was a state already in that era. 36 But beyond a bald assertion, Benoliel and Perry cite nothing that would demonstrate that Palestine was not a state in the League era. In particular, they mention nothing of the practice of the states of that era in regard to Palestine, which is where one must look to determine if Palestine was then a state.

Had Benoliel and Perry examined that state practice, they would have seen that Palestine was accepted as a state, even though it was administered by Great Britain under the mandate system established by the League. 3 7 Most critically, Benoliel and Perry fail to account for a major international instrument of the era bearing on the status of Palestine, the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne." It was in this treaty that Turkey gave up its territories in the Arab world following its defeat in World WarI

The Treaty of Lausanne, to which the World War I allies were party, more than once refers to Turkey's Arab territories (Iraq, Syria, and Palestine), all of which became Class A mandates as "states" that were "detached" from Turkey. 40 The Treaty of Lausanne thus reflected an assumption that the Class A mandate territories, including Palestine, were "states." Under the League Covenant, the independence of these states was "provisionally recognized," and they were to be made independent in due course. 41 The Class A mandates were states temporarily under the administration of an outside state.

Had Benoliel and Perry examined relevant League-era sources, they would have seen that the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) referred to Palestine as a state. This reference came in the well-known case involving concessions that had been granted to a Greek national named Mavrommatis by Turkey while it still controlled Palestine. 42 The case raised the issue of the status of those concessions following the demise of the Turkish empire, meaning that the PCIJ needed to determine what kind of entity had replaced Turkey in the territory of Palestine. 43 The Court said that Palestine was a successor state toTurkey.

http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1045&context=mjil

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you've made a couple errors here.

Benoliel and Perry attempt to refute my argument that the statehood asserted by the Palestine National Council in 1988 was not of a new state, ... The Court said that Palestine was a successor state to Turkey.
http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1045&context=mjil

(COMMENT)

EXCERPT: John Quigley Moritz College of Law, Ohio State University: The Treaty of Lausanne, to which the World War I allies were party, more than once refers to Turkey's Arab territories (Iraq, Syria, and Palestine), all of which became Class A mandates as "states" that were "detached" from Turkey.

Turkey, in the Treaty of Lausanne, renounces “all rights and title” and specifically accepted that: “the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.” Pertaining to the regional area in question, Turkey addressed the territory from the “Mediterranean to the frontier of Persia, the frontier of Turkey” as “Syria and Iraq” (found in Article 3). Nowhere, in the Treaty of Lausanne, is a place called Palestine identified. John Quigley has confused the “Iraq, Syria, and Palestine” with Section VII --- Syria, Mesopotamia, Palestine --- Articles 94-97 of the Treaty of Sevres.

EXCERPT --- John Quigley: “Had Benoliel and Perry examined that state practice, they would have seen that Palestine was accepted as a state.” That would be wrong on several levels. First, Article 22 is completely ambiguous as to what “certain communities” were “provisionally recognized.” The Covenant for the League of Nations never actually stipulated which territories were provisionally recognized and which territories were not provisionally recognized. In 1919, when the Covenant was written, the signatories and the Allied Powers had not decided the boundaries of Palestine. In fact the San Remo Convention had not convened yet.

Secondly, the territory to which the Mandate for Palestine applied, while it was the Government of Palestine, administered by Great Britain, it was a non-self-governing institution. This was made clear by the fact that it was not governed by the Arab Palestinians which declined to participate in nation build (rejected three time by 1923). It was also made clear in the LEGAL MEANING OF THE “TERMINATION OF THE MANDATE” in which it clearly states that “Palestine is today (25 February 1948) a legal entity but it is not a sovereign state. Palestine is a territory administered under mandate by His Majesty (in respect of the United Kingdom), who is entirely responsible both for its internal administration and for its foreign affairs.

02/20/1948 A/AC.21/UK/42 UN Palestine Commission - Mandate termination - Letter from United Kingdom

On the matter of the comment pertaining to the PCIJ Judgment #5, What it actually said was:

"In all territories detached from Turkey, either as a result of the Balkan Wars in 1913, or under the present Treaty, other than those referred to in Article 311, the State which definitely acquires the territory shall ipso facto succeed to the duties and charges of Turkey towards concessions and holders of contracts, referred to in the first paragraph of Article 311, and shall maintain the guarantees granted or assign equivalent ones"​

Great Britain was responsible for the debt because it was the Government of Palestine.

the relevant piece of the legal pie is whether or not "Palestine" has a competing and superior claim. (And "Palestine" needs to be defined, btw).

Palestine has been a state since 1924. Its territory is defined by international borders. Israel sits inside those borders with no territory of its own.

And you argue about which one is legitimate.

(COMMENT)

One more time: 02/27/1948

PAL/138 Future government of Palestine - UN Palestine Commission as successor Government of Palestine/UK memorandum (excerpts) - Press release... This is the companion to A/AC.21/UK/42 Attached Memorandum "A"

Nothing prior to 1988, recognizes Palestine (as defined by the Order in Council 1922) identifies the territory to which the Mandate applied, as a Self-Governing State or Institution. Your statement: "Palestine has been a state since 1924." has NO VALIDITY whatsoever. The Palestine, within the boundaries eventually established by the Allied Powers, had been under the supervision of another power until 1948 when under the recommendation of the UN, Israel Declared Independence through self-determination. After the act of Aggression on the part of the Arab League and the subsequent Armistice Agreements, all the remaining territory not under Israeli sovereignty, was occupied or annexed by the Arab League until 1967. The UN "Acknowledges the proclamation of the State of Palestine by the Palestine National Council on 15 November 1988." For the last three decades, the designation "Palestine" should be used in place of the designation "Palestine Liberation Organization." The Arab Palestinians have had a totally dysfunctional leadership and have not been able to form a single governing body to exercise their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967. To-date, the the
people of the territory occupied since 1967 have been parasitic on donor nation contributions and a popular supported state sponsor of terrorism.

Most Respectfully,

R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you've made a couple errors here.

Benoliel and Perry attempt to refute my argument that the statehood asserted by the Palestine National Council in 1988 was not of a new state, ... The Court said that Palestine was a successor state to Turkey.
http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1045&context=mjil

(COMMENT)

EXCERPT: John Quigley Moritz College of Law, Ohio State University: The Treaty of Lausanne, to which the World War I allies were party, more than once refers to Turkey's Arab territories (Iraq, Syria, and Palestine), all of which became Class A mandates as "states" that were "detached" from Turkey.

Turkey, in the Treaty of Lausanne, renounces “all rights and title” and specifically accepted that: “the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.” Pertaining to the regional area in question, Turkey addressed the territory from the “Mediterranean to the frontier of Persia, the frontier of Turkey” as “Syria and Iraq” (found in Article 3). Nowhere, in the Treaty of Lausanne, is a place called Palestine identified. John Quigley has confused the “Iraq, Syria, and Palestine” with Section VII --- Syria, Mesopotamia, Palestine --- Articles 94-97 of the Treaty of Sevres.

EXCERPT --- John Quigley: “Had Benoliel and Perry examined that state practice, they would have seen that Palestine was accepted as a state.” That would be wrong on several levels. First, Article 22 is completely ambiguous as to what “certain communities” were “provisionally recognized.” The Covenant for the League of Nations never actually stipulated which territories were provisionally recognized and which territories were not provisionally recognized. In 1919, when the Covenant was written, the signatories and the Allied Powers had not decided the boundaries of Palestine. In fact the San Remo Convention had not convened yet.

Secondly, the territory to which the Mandate for Palestine applied, while it was the Government of Palestine, administered by Great Britain, it was a non-self-governing institution. This was made clear by the fact that it was not governed by the Arab Palestinians which declined to participate in nation build (rejected three time by 1923). It was also made clear in the LEGAL MEANING OF THE “TERMINATION OF THE MANDATE” in which it clearly states that “Palestine is today (25 February 1948) a legal entity but it is not a sovereign state. Palestine is a territory administered under mandate by His Majesty (in respect of the United Kingdom), who is entirely responsible both for its internal administration and for its foreign affairs.

02/20/1948 A/AC.21/UK/42 UN Palestine Commission - Mandate termination - Letter from United Kingdom

On the matter of the comment pertaining to the PCIJ Judgment #5, What it actually said was:

"In all territories detached from Turkey, either as a result of the Balkan Wars in 1913, or under the present Treaty, other than those referred to in Article 311, the State which definitely acquires the territory shall ipso facto succeed to the duties and charges of Turkey towards concessions and holders of contracts, referred to in the first paragraph of Article 311, and shall maintain the guarantees granted or assign equivalent ones"​

Great Britain was responsible for the debt because it was the Government of Palestine.

the relevant piece of the legal pie is whether or not "Palestine" has a competing and superior claim. (And "Palestine" needs to be defined, btw).

Palestine has been a state since 1924. Its territory is defined by international borders. Israel sits inside those borders with no territory of its own.

And you argue about which one is legitimate.

(COMMENT)

One more time: 02/27/1948

PAL/138 Future government of Palestine - UN Palestine Commission as successor Government of Palestine/UK memorandum (excerpts) - Press release... This is the companion to A/AC.21/UK/42 Attached Memorandum "A"

Nothing prior to 1988, recognizes Palestine (as defined by the Order in Council 1922) identifies the territory to which the Mandate applied, as a Self-Governing State or Institution. Your statement: "Palestine has been a state since 1924." has NO VALIDITY whatsoever. The Palestine, within the boundaries eventually established by the Allied Powers, had been under the supervision of another power until 1948 when under the recommendation of the UN, Israel Declared Independence through self-determination. After the act of Aggression on the part of the Arab League and the subsequent Armistice Agreements, all the remaining territory not under Israeli sovereignty, was occupied or annexed by the Arab League until 1967. The UN "Acknowledges the proclamation of the State of Palestine by the Palestine National Council on 15 November 1988." For the last three decades, the designation "Palestine" should be used in place of the designation "Palestine Liberation Organization." The Arab Palestinians have had a totally dysfunctional leadership and have not been able to form a single governing body to exercise their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967. To-date, the the
people of the territory occupied since 1967 have been parasitic on donor nation contributions and a popular supported state sponsor of terrorism.

Most Respectfully,

R

I think you are grasping at straws.

I find it interesting that I came to the same conclusion as Quigley before I heard of Quigley. I came to the same conclusion as Pappe before I heard of Pappe. It is nice to find actual scholars who have more knowledge and resources agree with what I had found on my own.

 

[MJB12741]

That is not another "claim." That is history. How do you post here and know so little?

Oh for the love of all that is holy. Do you not understand debate? You present a claim. (Israel has no legal status; Palestine became a State in 1924). And then you defend that claim by providing supporting arguments. Then I challenge those arguments and offer counter-arguments.

Jeez.

He just likes to make up his own history.

 

[Shusha]

P F Tinmore

Yes, I would have to agree with Rocco (not surprising) that there is no basis for understanding that Palestine (nor Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan) achieved full Statehood in 1924 as a result of the Treaty of Lausanne, not the least of which is because it fails to meet the Montevideo criteria which you brought up.

Still, even if this were true, you have not laid out an argument for how the existence of this "state of Palestine" prohibits the existence of the State of Israel, either then or later when they declared independence. Indeed, what makes you think that Israel was not and is not the sovereign over the entire territory formerly known as "Palestine"? If Palestine was a State, wasn't it governed by the Jewish people? Why would that not have been the sole successor government of the British? It seems to me you are making a very good argument for the entire territory being under Israel's sovereignty.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore

Yes, I would have to agree with Rocco (not surprising) that there is no basis for understanding that Palestine (nor Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan) achieved full Statehood in 1924 as a result of the Treaty of Lausanne, not the least of which is because it fails to meet the Montevideo criteria which you brought up.

Still, even if this were true, you have not laid out an argument for how the existence of this "state of Palestine" prohibits the existence of the State of Israel, either then or later when they declared independence. Indeed, what makes you think that Israel was not and is not the sovereign over the entire territory formerly known as "Palestine"? If Palestine was a State, wasn't it governed by the Jewish people? Why would that not have been the sole successor government of the British? It seems to me you are making a very good argument for the entire territory being under Israel's sovereignty.

Would Israel become the government of the existing state of Palestine or would it be a successor state to Palestine? Different rules would apply.

 

[Shusha]

Would Israel become the government of the existing state of Palestine or would it be a successor state to Palestine? Different rules would apply.

Feel free to present your arguments for either scenario. If you would wish to indulge my preferences, I would argue that the government of the Jewish National Homeland became the only national governing body in the hole left by the British abandonment of the Mandate -- thus the State of Palestine (if it previously existed) was transferred from the British trust to the government of "Palestine" which declared independence and renamed the place Israel.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Would Israel become the government of the existing state of Palestine or would it be a successor state to Palestine? Different rules would apply.

Feel free to present your arguments for either scenario. If you would wish to indulge my preferences, I would argue that the government of the Jewish National Homeland became the only national governing body in the hole left by the British abandonment of the Mandate -- thus the State of Palestine (if it previously existed) was transferred from the British trust to the government of "Palestine" which declared independence and renamed the place Israel.

So you are saying that a government was established in the former mandate of Palestine and they changed the name of the country to Israel.

Then all of Palestine would be called Israel. Since there have been no treaties ceding any territory to another country then all of the former mandate would be Israel including the West Bank and Gaza. Then all of the people in the West Bank and Gaza would be Israeli citizens. That would also mean that all Palestinian refugees would be Israeli citizens.

The problem with this scenario is that a government derives its legitimacy from the will of the people. That government, and many of its laws, are created against the wishes of the vast majority of the people.

 

[Shusha]

Then all of Palestine would be called Israel. Since there have been no treaties ceding any territory to another country then all of the former mandate would be Israel including the West Bank and Gaza. Then all of the people in the West Bank and Gaza would be Israeli citizens. That would also mean that all Palestinian refugees would be Israeli citizens.

The problem with this scenario is that a government derives its legitimacy from the will of the people. That government, and many of its laws, are created against the wishes of the vast majority of the people.

Well, you were the one arguing that Palestine was, de jure, a State in 1924. (I don't happen to agree with you). But....IF it was then it seems to me the governing body of that State was Britain and after that the Jewish people in the form of the Israeli government. I don't see any competent, competing government to even offer as a possibility. Therefore, if Palestine was a State and since you and I are in long-standing agreement that there is no international boundary dividing Palestine, the only option is that Israel is the sovereign over the entire territory, having been the only government operating within that territory meeting the criteria for Statehood. Thus Egypt and Jordan occupied sovereign Palestinian territory from 1948 to 1967 and Israel (State of de jure Palestine), rather than "winning land in war" just re-exerted control over land already under her de jure sovereignty.

The question on the table remains: Israel has no legal status. It seems apparent to me that both your supporting arguments (Montevideo criteria and existence of State in 1924) have not only failed to convince that your premise is true -- but actually support its opposite -- that Israel has the ONLY claim to any legal status in the territory of Palestine.

Moving on to your "will of the people" argument. Clearly, the "will of the people" has brought about a de facto State of Israel. If the "will of the people" brings about de jure by legitimizing de facto -- then you have already lost that argument as well.

Further, self-determination and the right to it are not dependent on holding a majority. Its an inherent right, remember? Its not conditional.

 

[P F Tinmore]

If the "will of the people" brings about de jure by legitimizing de facto -- then you have already lost that argument as well.

Not so. The vast majority of the people have never been allowed to vote.

 

[P F Tinmore]

IF it was then it seems to me the governing body of that State was Britain and after that the Jewish people in the form of the Israeli government.

You are making a leap there.

It is true that the British were the appointed government. But Britain was not the sovereign of the territory. It was merely a trustee. The people are the sovereigns. When Britain left the people stayed and retained their sovereignty. A government is not required.

So when Israel set up shop in Palestine it was not an empty place up for grabs. It was already populated by a people who had the right to self determination without external interference, the right to independence and sovereignty, and the right to territorial integrity.

So if Israel does not violate any of those rights it can claim to be a legitimate state.

 

[Shusha]

You are making a leap there.

I'm making a leap here? Oh, the irony. Remember you are trying to defend the idea that Israel has no legal status. I'm just countering your arguments.

It is true that the British were the appointed government. But Britain was not the sovereign of the territory. It was merely a trustee.

Close enough for the purposes of our discussion.

The people are the sovereigns.

Yeah, no. The people hold the right to sovereignty (self-determination) but the "people" are not sovereign. (Had the people BEEN sovereign, there would have been no need for a Mandate.) People can hold the RIGHT to sovereignty (self-determination) without actually holding de jure or de facto sovereignty. Examples: The people of Scotland, the Quebecois, Catalans, Kurds, Tibetans, Cypriots, Western Saharans, First Nations peoples of the Americas, etc, etc, etc. (In my opinion, the Arab Palestinians fall into this category -- they hold the RIGHT to sovereignty over some territory, but at the moment, do not have actual sovereignty (excepting Gaza). Anyone who uses terms like "occupied territory", by implication, agrees with me.)

To create an analogy: there is a great deal of difference between my right to marry and my being married, de jure.

This is KEY to our discussion at the moment. At what point do a peoples (holding the inherent right to sovereignty) actually obtain sovereignty and through which acts or legal instruments does this occur? What creates de jure sovereignty?

A government is not required.

See THAT is an interesting claim you make. And directly contradictory to Montevideo, btw. Are you withdrawing Montevideo as criteria for State formation? How can a State be a State, de jure, without a government? How can you measure whether a State is a State if there is no government?

So when Israel set up shop in Palestine it was not an empty place up for grabs.

And this goes back to a question I asked at the beginning of this chain of dialogue: what, do you think, was the de jure condition of the territory from the end of the Ottoman Empire through to today? Give me a timeline.

It was already populated by a people who had the right to self determination without external interference, the right to independence and sovereignty, and the right to territorial integrity.

In point of fact, it was populated by TWO such peoples.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Anyone who uses terms like "occupied territory", by implication, agrees with me.)

You can violate the right to sovereignty but you cannot negate it.

 

[P F Tinmore]

In point of fact, it was populated by TWO such peoples.

I don't agree but even if true one cannot violate the rights of the other. Nobody has the right to violate the rights of others.

 

[montelatici]

You are making a leap there.

I'm making a leap here? Oh, the irony. Remember you are trying to defend the idea that Israel has no legal status. I'm just countering your arguments.

It is true that the British were the appointed government. But Britain was not the sovereign of the territory. It was merely a trustee.

Close enough for the purposes of our discussion.

The people are the sovereigns.

Yeah, no. The people hold the right to sovereignty (self-determination) but the "people" are not sovereign. (Had the people BEEN sovereign, there would have been no need for a Mandate.) People can hold the RIGHT to sovereignty (self-determination) without actually holding de jure or de facto sovereignty. Examples: The people of Scotland, the Quebecois, Catalans, Kurds, Tibetans, Cypriots, Western Saharans, First Nations peoples of the Americas, etc, etc, etc. (In my opinion, the Arab Palestinians fall into this category -- they hold the RIGHT to sovereignty over some territory, but at the moment, do not have actual sovereignty (excepting Gaza). Anyone who uses terms like "occupied territory", by implication, agrees with me.)

To create an analogy: there is a great deal of difference between my right to marry and my being married, de jure.

This is KEY to our discussion at the moment. At what point do a peoples (holding the inherent right to sovereignty) actually obtain sovereignty and through which acts or legal instruments does this occur? What creates de jure sovereignty?

A government is not required.

See THAT is an interesting claim you make. And directly contradictory to Montevideo, btw. Are you withdrawing Montevideo as criteria for State formation? How can a State be a State, de jure, without a government? How can you measure whether a State is a State if there is no government?

So when Israel set up shop in Palestine it was not an empty place up for grabs.

And this goes back to a question I asked at the beginning of this chain of dialogue: what, do you think, was the de jure condition of the territory from the end of the Ottoman Empire through to today? Give me a timeline.

It was already populated by a people who had the right to self determination without external interference, the right to independence and sovereignty, and the right to territorial integrity.

In point of fact, it was populated by TWO such peoples.

It was overwhelmingly populated by native people who did not practice Judaism until the 1850s when the Zionists began to arrive.

AN INTERIM REPORT
ON THE
CIVIL ADMINISTRATION
OF

PALESTINE,

during the period
1st JULY, 1920--30th JUNE, 1921.


AN INTERIM REPORT
ON THE
CIVIL ADMINISTRATION
OF
PALESTINE.

I.--THE CONDITION OF PALESTINE AFTER THE WAR

"There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people, a population much less than that of the province of Gallilee alone in the time of Christ.* (*See Sir George Adam Smith "Historical Geography of the Holy Land", Chap. 20.) Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages. Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems. A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race. Some 77,000 of the population are Christians, in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or--a small number--are Protestants.

The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years. Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews. "

Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations/Balfour Declaration text (30 July 1921)

 

[Shusha]

And this goes back to a question I asked at the beginning of this chain of dialogue: what, do you think, was the de jure condition of the territory from the end of the Ottoman Empire through to today? Give me a timeline.

Here's my claim, should anyone want to counter:

1. Territory indisputably under the sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire. (-1920ish)

2. Territory under the sovereignty of the British Mandate, held in trust, for the independent State of Palestine which was to be the National Homeland of the Jewish people. (1920ish-1948)

3. Entire territory under the sovereignty of Israel. (1948-1993)

4. Parts of territory occupied illegally by Jordan and Egypt. (1948-1967)

5. Territory removed from foreign occupation and restored to Israeli sovereignty. (1967-1993)

6. Parts of territory ceded to Arab Palestinian government (Areas A and B) and parts held in trust for eventual independent State of Palestine (homeland for the Arab Palestinians) (Area C), with final international border to be determined through negotiation and peace treaty. (1993-present)


Hit me up with your counter arguments to any of this.

 

[P F Tinmore]

And this goes back to a question I asked at the beginning of this chain of dialogue: what, do you think, was the de jure condition of the territory from the end of the Ottoman Empire through to today? Give me a timeline.

Palestine is a state that has been occupied since its inception.

 

[Shusha]

You can violate the right to sovereignty but you cannot negate it.

Then stop trying to negate Israeli sovereignty.

 

[P F Tinmore]

6. Parts of territory ceded to Arab Palestinian government (Areas A and B) and parts held in trust for eventual independent State of Palestine (homeland for the Arab Palestinians) (Area C), with final international border to be determined through negotiation and peace treaty. (1993-present)

Israel never had any land to cede.