Uhhh, Islamic terrorist franchises can show you where the boundaries are.
You live in some alternate reality?
Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
- Thread starter P F Tinmore
- Start date
Uhhh, Islamic terrorist franchises can show you where the boundaries are.
You live in some alternate reality?
The part that gave any credence to a charade.
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 82,855
- 4,656
- 1,815
- Thread starter
- #204
A line of goons with guns does not make a border.
Treaties between nations do.
Soldiers with weapons are sometimes needed to defend borders.
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 82,855
- 4,656
- 1,815
- Thread starter
- #206
What treaty does Israel have that changes Palestine's borders?
RoccoR
Gold Member
RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
⁜→ P F Tinmore,
BLUF: Now you are just being characteristically obstinate.
You know as well as I know that the "Palestine" of today, is not the 1922 Palestine that was designated by the Palestine Order in Council.
You know, as well as I do, if you bothered to read and understand (without prejudice to the Arab Palestinians) that the Borders have been agreed upon by the Treaties Israel has with Jordan and Egypt.
You know as well as I do, that no matter how the Rule of Law has applied 100 years ago (at the San Remo Convention), or when the National Council for the Jewish State, applied to the UN Palestine Commission (UNPC) for independence under the Rule of Self-Determination (more than 70 years ago) that it was legitimately accepted. And that almost one year to the (11 May 1949) the UN decided to admit Israel to membership in the United Nations.
In 1948, you have seen what I have seen. "Palestine was a "Legal Entity" but NOT a self-governing State.
This is nonsense that you don't accept the documented facts.
As a matter of historical fact, the Territory to which the Mandate applied has the name Palestine. The Treaties don't change that at all. What it does add to the historical record is the State of Israel and its internationally recognized boundaries.boundaries.
It does the Arab Palestinian no service to constantly refuse to accept the evolutionary changes over time.
Most Respectfully,
R
⁜→ P F Tinmore,
BLUF: Now you are just being characteristically obstinate.
(COMMENT)
You know as well as I know that the "Palestine" of today, is not the 1922 Palestine that was designated by the Palestine Order in Council.
You know, as well as I do, if you bothered to read and understand (without prejudice to the Arab Palestinians) that the Borders have been agreed upon by the Treaties Israel has with Jordan and Egypt.
You know as well as I do, that no matter how the Rule of Law has applied 100 years ago (at the San Remo Convention), or when the National Council for the Jewish State, applied to the UN Palestine Commission (UNPC) for independence under the Rule of Self-Determination (more than 70 years ago) that it was legitimately accepted. And that almost one year to the (11 May 1949) the UN decided to admit Israel to membership in the United Nations.
In 1948, you have seen what I have seen. "Palestine was a "Legal Entity" but NOT a self-governing State.
This is nonsense that you don't accept the documented facts.
As a matter of historical fact, the Territory to which the Mandate applied has the name Palestine. The Treaties don't change that at all. What it does add to the historical record is the State of Israel and its internationally recognized boundaries.boundaries.
It does the Arab Palestinian no service to constantly refuse to accept the evolutionary changes over time.
Most Respectfully,
R
rylah
Gold Member
- Jun 10, 2015
- 23,385
- 4,950
- 290
Boundaries
Definition of Boundaries in the Legal Dictionary by The Free Dictionary
legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com
rylah
Gold Member
- Jun 10, 2015
- 23,385
- 4,950
- 290
By being the only nation vested with sovereignty in the country.
The tile never ceased, merely re-constituted.
Now, establishment of an Arab state in that land, requires that acquisition of title
from the sovereign nation, which is exactly the way they received autonomy.
Last edited:
rylah
Gold Member
- Jun 10, 2015
- 23,385
- 4,950
- 290
Last edited:
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 82,855
- 4,656
- 1,815
- Thread starter
- #211
Sure, Palestine received title to specific territory, defined by international borders, by post war treaties.
rylah
Gold Member
- Jun 10, 2015
- 23,385
- 4,950
- 290
Ok, but this only confirms my post.
From day one, Palestine as a separate territorial unit,
was defined in reference solely to the Jewish nation/Israel.
Last edited:
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 82,855
- 4,656
- 1,815
- Thread starter
- #213
The "Jewish national home," as defined by the Mandate, was citizenship in Palestine. As Palestinian citizens they could live anywhere in Palestine like the rest of the Palestinians. Israel or a Jewish state were not mentioned.
rylah
Gold Member
- Jun 10, 2015
- 23,385
- 4,950
- 290
No where in the mandate does it suggest that.
Citizenship doesn't equal national sovereignty,
yet the term 'national' was specifically set in reference to Jews/Israel.
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 82,855
- 4,656
- 1,815
- Thread starter
- #215
ART. 7.
The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.
Israel or a Jewish state are not mentioned.
What about the Treaty of Lausanne inventing the "country of Pally'land"?
rylah
Gold Member
- Jun 10, 2015
- 23,385
- 4,950
- 290
Israel and Jews are synonyms.
The territorial unit 'Palestine' specifically assigned for the Jewish nation.
Was the term 'nation' used in those documents in reference to anyone else?
As you know, there is a thread for your circular arguments about the invention of some mythical ''country of Pally'land''
The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
This is the thread for your youtube video collection.
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 82,855
- 4,656
- 1,815
- Thread starter
- #219
Palestine was already a defined territory. The Palestinians already had nationality and citizenship. That should not have to be reiterated. It was the Jews who had to be fit in there somehow.
RoccoR
Gold Member
RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
⁜→ P F Tinmore,
BLUF: Again, this is wrong. As has been pointed out so many times before:
The Treaty of Lausanne does NOT even mention "Palestine" anywhere in the text. The Treaty specifically states^ that:
The Treaty of Lausanne is 'Binding" on the parties^^ to the Treaty. Neither Israel (a full member in the UN since 1949) or the current State of Palestine (a Non-Member Observer Member in the UN since 2012) denied full membership last actioned in 2015, were binding parties to the Treaty^^^ when the Treaty went into force.
It should be noted at this point, realtive to the "Tinmore Claim" → that Palestine was already a defined territory, that the Allied Powers has previously agreed^^^^ that:
BLUF NOTES
^: Territorial Section, Article 16 Treaty of Lausanne (24 July 1923)
^^: Article 2(1g) Vienna Convention Law Treaties (1969 - EIF:1980)
^^^: Article 1(2a) Vienna Convention Law Treaties (1969 - EIF:1980)
^^^^: The San Remo Convention (1920) of the Allied Powers
There has been a very unenlightened strategy for the pro_Arab Palestinians to Kling to the opening of the Nationality Section, Article 30 Treaty of Lausanne (24 July 1923). This Article stipulates that:
This is based on the decisions as to the final disposition of the territory. The Treaty did not make the final disposition of Palestine. That was a decision, at that time, yet to be made by the Allied Powers. And again, it should be noted, as a comment made in previous contributions, that:
No matter what the reasoning, the fact remains that the Arab Higher Committee did REJECT multiple offers - the very same offers made to the Jewish Agency which they ACCEPTED, that ultimately lead to the creations of the Jewish State. And IF there is fault to be found or disappointment in the outcome of the historical path on the way to self-determination and the institution of self-government, THEN that fault rests at the feet of the Arab Palestinians.
All this whining by the Arab Palestinians about how they were so mistreated, is uncalled-for. They were treated the same and had the portal the accomplish what the Jewish Agency actually did accomplish, BUT made an informed choice not to enter. They should shut-up and change their direction if they want to recover any opportunity for a self-governing institution that can sustain itself.
And they need to disavow the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) and the National Palestinian Authority (mostly Fatah) which are based upon political success through conflict:
By embracing HAMAS or Fatah, gives them both unearned recognition and credibility; saying to the world - terrorism is a winning strategy (Article 9, Palestinian National Charter, PMW).
Most Respectfully,
R
⁜→ P F Tinmore,
BLUF: Again, this is wrong. As has been pointed out so many times before:
The Treaty of Lausanne does NOT even mention "Palestine" anywhere in the text. The Treaty specifically states^ that:
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 Treaty of Lausanne is 'Binding" on the parties^^ to the Treaty. Neither Israel (a full member in the UN since 1949) or the current State of Palestine (a Non-Member Observer Member in the UN since 2012) denied full membership last actioned in 2015, were binding parties to the Treaty^^^ when the Treaty went into force.
It should be noted at this point, realtive to the "Tinmore Claim" → that Palestine was already a defined territory, that the Allied Powers has previously agreed^^^^ that:
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and
BLUF NOTES
^: Territorial Section, Article 16 Treaty of Lausanne (24 July 1923)
^^: Article 2(1g) Vienna Convention Law Treaties (1969 - EIF:1980)
^^^: Article 1(2a) Vienna Convention Law Treaties (1969 - EIF:1980)
^^^^: The San Remo Convention (1920) of the Allied Powers
(COMMENT)
There has been a very unenlightened strategy for the pro_Arab Palestinians to Kling to the opening of the Nationality Section, Article 30 Treaty of Lausanne (24 July 1923). This Article stipulates that:
Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.
This is based on the decisions as to the final disposition of the territory. The Treaty did not make the final disposition of Palestine. That was a decision, at that time, yet to be made by the Allied Powers. And again, it should be noted, as a comment made in previous contributions, that:
Later in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”. The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people.
No matter what the reasoning, the fact remains that the Arab Higher Committee did REJECT multiple offers - the very same offers made to the Jewish Agency which they ACCEPTED, that ultimately lead to the creations of the Jewish State. And IF there is fault to be found or disappointment in the outcome of the historical path on the way to self-determination and the institution of self-government, THEN that fault rests at the feet of the Arab Palestinians.
All this whining by the Arab Palestinians about how they were so mistreated, is uncalled-for. They were treated the same and had the portal the accomplish what the Jewish Agency actually did accomplish, BUT made an informed choice not to enter. They should shut-up and change their direction if they want to recover any opportunity for a self-governing institution that can sustain itself.
And they need to disavow the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) and the National Palestinian Authority (mostly Fatah) which are based upon political success through conflict:
◈ There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad.
◈ Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.
By embracing HAMAS or Fatah, gives them both unearned recognition and credibility; saying to the world - terrorism is a winning strategy (Article 9, Palestinian National Charter, PMW).
Most Respectfully,
R
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
-
Dem congressman impeaching Trump accused of mistreating dogs- Started by Z99
- Replies: 2
-
Sec State Marco Rubio to Reporter: You know who else I'll never tell? A judge- Started by Seymour Flops
- Replies: 9
