Palestine Today

[P F Tinmore]

 

[rylah]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Again, asked and answered. Those powers that control of the future of these territories being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

ARTICLE 16 • Treaty of Peace with Turkey Signed at Lausanne, July 24, 1923
Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.

What was my question?

View attachment 317946

Who had the authority to partition of Palestine?

(COMMENT)

The Allied Powers. But the Allied Powers did not actually partition anything. The recommended that the Jewish Community establish a self-governing institution in accords with their "recommendation." It was the same recommendation that the Arab Palestinians rejected.

See: Posting #15308

Most Respectfully,
R

It is universally and legally accepted that sovereignty in the mandatory territories lie in the inhabitants of the territory in question (Article 22 of the Covenant of The League of Nations).

Partition and the Law - 1948

www.1948.org.uk

The allied powers never acquired sovereignty over the territories. They had no legitimate say over what happened in Palestine.

And you don't see the self-contradiction?

• On the one hand it's the Allied Powers created 'Palestine' as a separate territory unit - on which you base your whole political narrative for independent sovereignty.

• Yet on the other hand, and in the same breath, you reject Allied Powers as the authority to 'Partition of Palestine' which made it an independent territorial unit in the first place.

All that is a desperate attempt to hold the stick by both ends - an internal contradiction,
which makes no sense whatsoever.

Q. So which one is it, rejection of territory partition, or independent sovereignty?

Do try to keep up.

I did. Now you try answer that question.
Preferably try make some sense.

Can you?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
The mere existence of the Jewish National Home and the State of Israel is proof that the Israelis exercised their "right to self-determination."

BLUF: Declaration of Independence S/747 of 16 May 1948

“WE, the members of the National Council, representing the Jewish people in Palestine and the Zionist movement of the world...​

“HEREBY PROCLAIM the establishment of the Jewish State in Palestine, to be called ISRAEL.”​

– Declaration of the State of Israel, May 14 1948​

​

the Jewish Community chose to exercise the Right of Self-Determination.

Unsubstantiated Israeli talking point.

Do you have a link for that?

(COMMENT)

Self-Deterrmination is not a "thing" (noun). Self-Determination is not a verb or an object. It is a mental state, a purpose that justifies the extraordinary effort to attain some goal or objective. The Jewish People had it, and they empowered the National Council for the Jewish State to commit the people to that effort. The did and they accomplished their mission in the establishment of the Jewish State. It was not pretty, and it did not emulate the workings of a Swiss Watch, but they got it done. Whereas, → as late as August 1948, the Arab Palestinians were still rejecting offers to engage in the creation of an Arab self-governing institution. And the conflict we see today is a legacy of August 1948. You can draw a direct line between the attitude of the Hostile Arab Palestinian of August 1948 and today's multiple fractured Palestinian platforms.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ toastman, et al,

Yeah, this annoys me as well...

Is that all you got Tinmore? "Israeli talking point" ?

Why don't you, for once, post a proper rebuttal... If you can...

(COMMENT)

But I would really like to see this list of Israeli Talking Points.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
The mere existence of the Jewish National Home and the State of Israel is proof that the Israelis exercised their "right to self-determination."

BLUF: Declaration of Independence S/747 of 16 May 1948

“WE, the members of the National Council, representing the Jewish people in Palestine and the Zionist movement of the world...​

“HEREBY PROCLAIM the establishment of the Jewish State in Palestine, to be called ISRAEL.”​

– Declaration of the State of Israel, May 14 1948​

View attachment 318210
View attachment 318212​

the Jewish Community chose to exercise the Right of Self-Determination.

Unsubstantiated Israeli talking point.

Do you have a link for that?

(COMMENT)

Self-Deterrmination is not a "thing" (noun). Self-Determination is not a verb or an object. It is a mental state, a purpose that justifies the extraordinary effort to attain some goal or objective. The Jewish People had it, and they empowered the National Council for the Jewish State to commit the people to that effort. The did and they accomplished their mission in the establishment of the Jewish State. It was not pretty, and it did not emulate the workings of a Swiss Watch, but they got it done. Whereas, → as late as August 1948, the Arab Palestinians were still rejecting offers to engage in the creation of an Arab self-governing institution. And the conflict we see today is a legacy of August 1948. You can draw a direct line between the attitude of the Hostile Arab Palestinian of August 1948 and today's multiple fractured Palestinian platforms.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, you always duck my questions. So let's try another one.

Who says that it is OK for a people to go into another country and claim self determination?

Link?

 

[rylah]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
The mere existence of the Jewish National Home and the State of Israel is proof that the Israelis exercised their "right to self-determination."

BLUF: Declaration of Independence S/747 of 16 May 1948

“WE, the members of the National Council, representing the Jewish people in Palestine and the Zionist movement of the world...​

“HEREBY PROCLAIM the establishment of the Jewish State in Palestine, to be called ISRAEL.”​

– Declaration of the State of Israel, May 14 1948​

View attachment 318210
View attachment 318212​

the Jewish Community chose to exercise the Right of Self-Determination.

Unsubstantiated Israeli talking point.

Do you have a link for that?

(COMMENT)

Self-Deterrmination is not a "thing" (noun). Self-Determination is not a verb or an object. It is a mental state, a purpose that justifies the extraordinary effort to attain some goal or objective. The Jewish People had it, and they empowered the National Council for the Jewish State to commit the people to that effort. The did and they accomplished their mission in the establishment of the Jewish State. It was not pretty, and it did not emulate the workings of a Swiss Watch, but they got it done. Whereas, → as late as August 1948, the Arab Palestinians were still rejecting offers to engage in the creation of an Arab self-governing institution. And the conflict we see today is a legacy of August 1948. You can draw a direct line between the attitude of the Hostile Arab Palestinian of August 1948 and today's multiple fractured Palestinian platforms.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, you always duck my questions. So let's try another one.

Who says that it is OK for a people to go into another country and claim self determination?

Link?

You say....you do.
Arabs say...Arabs do...

Who says it's OK to claim self determination in land one cannot even pronounce?

 

[rylah]

Say B--haaalestine!

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Who says this question is correct.

Your question implies that the territory under trusteeship was somehow an entity wherein the Arab Palestinians right of possessing.

That would be false since the Title and Rights to the territory were renounced by the previous sovereign → in favor of the Allied Powers.

OK, you always duck my questions. So let's try another one.

Who says that it is OK for a people to go into another country and claim self determination?

Link?

(COMMENT)

The people, OTOH, suggest that the Allied Powers acting as the Mandate Authority deliberately included the entire population without regard to any other qualifying criteria.

The Government of Palestine was not a case of it being anything other than a Trusteeship in the hands of the UN, as an artificial political entity in which the

The FIRST flaw here is the Title and Rights were NOT in the hands of the Arab Palestinian. The territory was governed with the aid of Councils consisting exclusively of British officials. The Arab Palestinians rejected the policy of gradual constitutional development and working towards the goal to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government.​

​

The SECOND flaw is that the Jewish Agency in their quest for autonomy → or, in some cases, secession → need some sort of authority by a high power to processed with activities leading to their independence and distinct political status All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they free to pursue their economic, social and cultural development. In the case of the Jewish People 'vs' the Arab Palestinian People, the Jewish need not request permission from the Arab.​

IF the Jewish people are to determine their way of life, it will be necessary for them to decide the laws and policies of their new state. The prerequisite for the establishment of law is sovereign powers and territorial integrity. The Arab Palestinians did not establish competing for sovereign powers (none) and territorial integrity (none).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

OK, you always duck my questions. So let's try another one.

Who says that it is OK for a people to go into another country and claim self determination?

You always ask questions based on false premises. The Jewish people did not "go into another country". The Jewish people have lived in Israel, Judea and Samaria for thousands upon thousands of years.

 

[toastman]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

OK, I knew all that but that was not my question.

(CLARIFY)

I answered the question you asked.

WHAT is it you want?

Most Respectfully,
R

What was my question?

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, rylah, et al,

BLUF: I knew that if I wrote it enough, I would make a mistake.

Q. So which one is it, rejection of territory partition, or independent sovereignty?

(COMMENT)

The Allied Powers had the opportunity to establish sovereignty and deliberately chose NOT TO. Independence was a matter of Self-Determination on the part of the pro-Arab State and the pro-Jewish State entities. They did not acquire sovereignty. BUT, they did maintain effective control.

◈ The "rejection of territory partition" belongs in the Arab Palestinian basket.​

​

◈ The "independent sovereignty" belongs in the Jewish Council basket.​

​

◈ By 1945 the UN Trustee System held the Title and Rights by treaty. This belongs to the Allied Powers Basket.​

The "recommendation" for the territorial partition was not an edict. BUT, the Jewish Community chose to exercise the Right of Self-Determination. The UN DID NOT make a partition. By the time the Israel State was established, the Arab League crossed the frontier effectively ending the planned way in which to implement self-governance.

Most Respectfully,
R

the Jewish Community chose to exercise the Right of Self-Determination.

Unsubstantiated Israeli talking point.

Do you have a link for that?

Is that all you got Tinmore? "Israeli talking point" ?

Why don't you, for once, post a proper rebuttal... If you can...

He makes a claim he can't back up.

Wrong again. All he does is back up his claims by Yy

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
The mere existence of the Jewish National Home and the State of Israel is proof that the Israelis exercised their "right to self-determination."

BLUF: Declaration of Independence S/747 of 16 May 1948

“WE, the members of the National Council, representing the Jewish people in Palestine and the Zionist movement of the world...​

“HEREBY PROCLAIM the establishment of the Jewish State in Palestine, to be called ISRAEL.”​

– Declaration of the State of Israel, May 14 1948​

View attachment 318210
View attachment 318212​

the Jewish Community chose to exercise the Right of Self-Determination.

Unsubstantiated Israeli talking point.

Do you have a link for that?

(COMMENT)

Self-Deterrmination is not a "thing" (noun). Self-Determination is not a verb or an object. It is a mental state, a purpose that justifies the extraordinary effort to attain some goal or objective. The Jewish People had it, and they empowered the National Council for the Jewish State to commit the people to that effort. The did and they accomplished their mission in the establishment of the Jewish State. It was not pretty, and it did not emulate the workings of a Swiss Watch, but they got it done. Whereas, → as late as August 1948, the Arab Palestinians were still rejecting offers to engage in the creation of an Arab self-governing institution. And the conflict we see today is a legacy of August 1948. You can draw a direct line between the attitude of the Hostile Arab Palestinian of August 1948 and today's multiple fractured Palestinian platforms.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, you always duck my questions. So let's try another one.

Who says that it is OK for a people to go into another country and claim self determination?

Link?

What country would that be ?

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Who says this question is correct.

Your question implies that the territory under trusteeship was somehow an entity wherein the Arab Palestinians right of possessing.

That would be false since the Title and Rights to the territory were renounced by the previous sovereign → in favor of the Allied Powers.

OK, you always duck my questions. So let's try another one.

Who says that it is OK for a people to go into another country and claim self determination?

Link?

(COMMENT)

The people, OTOH, suggest that the Allied Powers acting as the Mandate Authority deliberately included the entire population without regard to any other qualifying criteria.

The Government of Palestine was not a case of it being anything other than a Trusteeship in the hands of the UN, as an artificial political entity in which the

The FIRST flaw here is the Title and Rights were NOT in the hands of the Arab Palestinian. The territory was governed with the aid of Councils consisting exclusively of British officials. The Arab Palestinians rejected the policy of gradual constitutional development and working towards the goal to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government.​

​

The SECOND flaw is that the Jewish Agency in their quest for autonomy → or, in some cases, secession → need some sort of authority by a high power to processed with activities leading to their independence and distinct political status All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they free to pursue their economic, social and cultural development. In the case of the Jewish People 'vs' the Arab Palestinian People, the Jewish need not request permission from the Arab.​

IF the Jewish people are to determine their way of life, it will be necessary for them to decide the laws and policies of their new state. The prerequisite for the establishment of law is sovereign powers and territorial integrity. The Arab Palestinians did not establish competing for sovereign powers (none) and territorial integrity (none).

Most Respectfully,
R

Holy smokescreen, Batman.

The FIRST flaw here is the Title and Rights were NOT in the hands of the Arab Palestinian.

Got any proof?

Of course not.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: You can ignore the facts.

The FIRST flaw here is the Title and Rights were NOT in the hands of the Arab Palestinian.

Got any proof?

Of course not.

(DOCUMENTATION)

TREATY OF PEACE WITH TURKEY
ARTICLE 16. Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.

Excerpt:
THE BRITISH EMPIRE, FRANCE, ITALY, JAPAN, GREECE, ROUMANIA and the SERB-CROAT-SLOVENE STATE, of the one part, and TURKEY, of the other part;

(COMMENT)

No mention of the Arab Palestinian.

Whoever you thought held the Title and Rights, it was not the Arab Palestinians.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: You can ignore the facts.

The FIRST flaw here is the Title and Rights were NOT in the hands of the Arab Palestinian.

Got any proof?

Of course not.

(DOCUMENTATION)

TREATY OF PEACE WITH TURKEY
ARTICLE 16. Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.

Excerpt:
THE BRITISH EMPIRE, FRANCE, ITALY, JAPAN, GREECE, ROUMANIA and the SERB-CROAT-SLOVENE STATE, of the one part, and TURKEY, of the other part;

(COMMENT)

No mention of the Arab Palestinian.

Whoever you thought held the Title and Rights, it was not the Arab Palestinians.

Most Respectfully,
R

the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

Where does it say who these parties are?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: You have to get better in your research.

The parties to the Treaty are identified in the Preamble. It has only been since 2012 that the Arab Palestinian entered into such agreements.

​

TREATY OF PEACE WITH TURKEY SIGNED AT LAUSANNE JULY 24, 1923 THE CONVENTION RESPECTING THE REGIME OF THE STRAITS AND OTHER INSTRUMENTS SIGNED AT LAUSANNE THE BRITISH EMPIRE, FRANCE, ITALY, JAPAN, GREECE, ROUMANIA and the SERB-CROAT-SLOVENE STATE, of the one part, and TURKEY, of the other part; Being united in the desire to bring to a final close the state of war which has existed in the East since 1914,​

​

the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

Where does it say who these parties are?

(REFERENCE)

Article 2(1) • Vienna Convention Law Treaties (1969 - EIF:1980)
(g) “party” means a State which has consented to be bound by the treaty and for which the treaty is in force;

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinians were neither organized as a "state" (applies to treaties between States) nor did the Arab Palestinians have an appointment with “full powers” with the competent authority of a State to represent the State for negotiating, and commit to an obligation or concluded agreement between States.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[toastman]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Who says this question is correct.

Your question implies that the territory under trusteeship was somehow an entity wherein the Arab Palestinians right of possessing.

That would be false since the Title and Rights to the territory were renounced by the previous sovereign → in favor of the Allied Powers.

OK, you always duck my questions. So let's try another one.

Who says that it is OK for a people to go into another country and claim self determination?

Link?

(COMMENT)

The people, OTOH, suggest that the Allied Powers acting as the Mandate Authority deliberately included the entire population without regard to any other qualifying criteria.

The Government of Palestine was not a case of it being anything other than a Trusteeship in the hands of the UN, as an artificial political entity in which the

The FIRST flaw here is the Title and Rights were NOT in the hands of the Arab Palestinian. The territory was governed with the aid of Councils consisting exclusively of British officials. The Arab Palestinians rejected the policy of gradual constitutional development and working towards the goal to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government.​

​

The SECOND flaw is that the Jewish Agency in their quest for autonomy → or, in some cases, secession → need some sort of authority by a high power to processed with activities leading to their independence and distinct political status All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they free to pursue their economic, social and cultural development. In the case of the Jewish People 'vs' the Arab Palestinian People, the Jewish need not request permission from the Arab.​

IF the Jewish people are to determine their way of life, it will be necessary for them to decide the laws and policies of their new state. The prerequisite for the establishment of law is sovereign powers and territorial integrity. The Arab Palestinians did not establish competing for sovereign powers (none) and territorial integrity (none).

Most Respectfully,
R

Holy smokescreen, Batman.

The FIRST flaw here is the Title and Rights were NOT in the hands of the Arab Palestinian.

Got any proof?

Of course not.

and as usual Tinmore, you got nothing but false accusations....
*yawn* you’re boring me !

 

[Shusha]

Where does it say who these parties are?

You are so infuriating because you are either flat out wrong or utterly clueless 90% of the time, but every once in a while you actually hit upon an important point.

And this is one of those times. While Rocco is (imo) entirely correct in his post, there is another way to approach the problem. For the first time in history, the idea of self-determination of peoples was being formed and the concept began to creep into international humanitarian and customary law.

So who were the "parties concerned"?

I think it is entirely valid to suggest that the "parties concerned" were not only the Allied Powers, and the State chosen as trustee for the territory, but also the the peoples whose right to self-determination was an emerging consideration.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: You have to get better in your research.

The parties to the Treaty are identified in the Preamble. It has only been since 2012 that the Arab Palestinian entered into such agreements.

​

TREATY OF PEACE WITH TURKEY SIGNED AT LAUSANNE JULY 24, 1923 THE CONVENTION RESPECTING THE REGIME OF THE STRAITS AND OTHER INSTRUMENTS SIGNED AT LAUSANNE THE BRITISH EMPIRE, FRANCE, ITALY, JAPAN, GREECE, ROUMANIA and the SERB-CROAT-SLOVENE STATE, of the one part, and TURKEY, of the other part; Being united in the desire to bring to a final close the state of war which has existed in the East since 1914,​

​

the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

Where does it say who these parties are?

(REFERENCE)

Article 2(1) • Vienna Convention Law Treaties (1969 - EIF:1980)
(g) “party” means a State which has consented to be bound by the treaty and for which the treaty is in force;

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinians were neither organized as a "state" (applies to treaties between States) nor did the Arab Palestinians have an appointment with “full powers” with the competent authority of a State to represent the State for negotiating, and commit to an obligation or concluded agreement between States.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are running on the assumption that the parties of the treaty were the only parties in the world, but look at the facts.

The allied powers created new states in the territory of the defunct Ottoman Empire. They did not annex the territories and never claimed any sovereignty.

The territory was transferred to the new states. The people of those new states would be the sovereigns in their respective territory. They would be the citizens of their new state.

Now, which people would be the parties concerned?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, Shusha, et al,

BLUF: You have confused those "parties" bound by the treaty (the signatories) with those populations "affected" (sympathetic impact) by the treaty.

Now, which people would be the parties concerned?

(COMMENT)

Within the scope of the Mandate for Palestine, defined as the territory subject to the Palestine Order in Council, there were no foreign self-governing states (let alone a sovereign government ruled by Arab Palestinians west of the Jordan River).

​

There were no self-governing or autonomous political subdivisions in the Region under discussion.

During the period, covered by the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) the princple advocate on the side of the regional Arabs was Hussein bin Ali, Grand Sharif of Mecca, King of the Hejaz, and his son, Hashemite Prince Abdullah. And Prince Abduallah's advocacy paid-off, because he became the Emir of Tranjordan and later the First Sovereign over the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. It did not come easy, the the step approach was successful. On the other hand, the Arab Palestinian approach was characterized by threats to use of force, which escalated to the use of force, in the struggle for territorial and political independence were unsuccessful.

In the context that we are discussing here, the Arab Palestinians had rejected three attempts made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. Like I said before, the child-like attitude exhibited by them and the demand of the Mandate to relinquish the entirety of the remaining territory estblish an unacceptable threshold for which the British would hold with resolve.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: WOW, At first glance, it seems we are in agreement with the set of facts; BUT, we are in disagreement that the Arab Palestinians were a "party to the treaty."

You are running on the assumption that the parties of the treaty were the only parties in the world, but look at the facts.

The allied powers created new states in the territory of the defunct Ottoman Empire. They did not annex the territories and never claimed any sovereignty.

The territory was transferred to the new states. The people of those new states would be the sovereigns in their respective territory. They would be the citizens of their new state.

Now, which people would be the parties concerned?

(COMMENT)

Just because the Mandatories eventually allowed the creation of sovereign and self-governing institutions does not make them a "party to the treaty."

The Arab Palestinians cannot claim that the Mandatory owed a direct obligation other than to ensure that the population was NOT stateless. Furthermore, once the Mandatory withdrew and ended their part of the Mandate, nothing of the treaty was binding pursuant to the governance.

One more point needs to be made and made hard:

◈ NO matter how much sympathy you have for the Arab Palestinians,​

◈ NO matter how many wrongs you perceive the Israelis have committed,​

◈ NO external entity owed the Arab Palestinian obligation what so ever - once they opened up hostilities.​

Once the Arab League forces cross their frontier all the sequences of events afterward were a direct result of a LACK of any determination on the part of the Arab Palestinian to participate in the establishment of self-governing institutions.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: WOW, At first glance, it seems we are in agreement with the set of facts; BUT, we are in disagreement that the Arab Palestinians were a "party to the treaty."

You are running on the assumption that the parties of the treaty were the only parties in the world, but look at the facts.

The allied powers created new states in the territory of the defunct Ottoman Empire. They did not annex the territories and never claimed any sovereignty.

The territory was transferred to the new states. The people of those new states would be the sovereigns in their respective territory. They would be the citizens of their new state.

Now, which people would be the parties concerned?

(COMMENT)

Just because the Mandatories eventually allowed the creation of sovereign and self-governing institutions does not make them a "party to the treaty."

The Arab Palestinians cannot claim that the Mandatory owed a direct obligation other than to ensure that the population was NOT stateless. Furthermore, once the Mandatory withdrew and ended their part of the Mandate, nothing of the treaty was binding pursuant to the governance.

One more point needs to be made and made hard:

◈ NO matter how much sympathy you have for the Arab Palestinians,​

◈ NO matter how many wrongs you perceive the Israelis have committed,​

◈ NO external entity owed the Arab Palestinian obligation what so ever - once they opened up hostilities.​

Once the Arab League forces cross their frontier all the sequences of events afterward were a direct result of a LACK of any determination on the part of the Arab Palestinian to participate in the establishment of self-governing institutions.

Most Respectfully,
R

BUT, we are in disagreement that the Arab Palestinians were a "party to the treaty."

I didn't say they were.

Try again.