RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
⁜→ Hollie, P F Tinmore, et al,
BLUF: There is even a deeper flaw (in my layman's opinion) to P F Tinmore's notions.
Well, you are not exactly correct. In
Section I, Territorial Clauses, Article 3, Treaty of Lausanne it mentions both Syria and Iraq.
Syria and Iraq were only mentioned because they border Turkey and those borders had to be defined.
Nice try though.
So you still insist the Treaty of Lausanne created your magical kingdom of Pal’istan?
Seems rather odd in the sense that Pal’istan is not named in the Treaty.
Maybe you’re confused?
(COMMENT)
Over time, there have probably been a million treaties that have been written between various nations. The circumstances that induced any given treaty, as well as, the enforceability of any of those treaties do not last forever. That, coupled with the fact that the habitual inhabitance of the territory and the Jewish immigrants were not bound parties to the treaty.
Then add the fact that the creation of the post-WWII recommendations and by the new trustee authorities and the withdraw of the UK from the position of Mandatory create a new set of circumstances.
◈ The adoption of General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) Recommendation by the UN Special Committee on Palestine [A/RES/181(II) of 29 November 1947] and the acceptance by the Israelis add a component,
◈ The
formal adoption of the Resolution 273 (III) Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations [A/RES/273 (III) 11 May 1949],
◈ The tacit approval through acts which implies the positive adopted resolutions were accepted, gave the implied authority by the General Assembly, representing the original authority passed down from the Allied Powers, for the accepted creation of Israel.
The pro-Hostile Terrorist Arab Palestinian Consortium, no matter what the interpretation they may hold, will find it difficult to say today that there was an existence of a Palestine that was a greater legal entity than that of the Government of Palestine (GoP). There was no soveriegn authority granted to the habitual inhabitance of the territory given by the Treaty.
I think I comprehend the difference between the 1924 Treaty on Nationality versus Territory. And, even that has been overtaken by event.
Please expound.
(COMMENT)
There are several Sections to the Treaty of Lausanne which address different aspect the Treaty covers. Section I covers Territorial Issues. Section II covers Nationality issues. Relative to the the territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine, Article 16 grants title to the Allied Powers. Relative to the the territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine, Article 30 protects the habitual inhabitence from becomeing stateless. It is just that simple. And in the thumbnail perspective (less all the fine detail) - when the Civil Administration created the entity known as the Government of Palestine (GoP), the GoP became a placeholder for the establishment of a self-governing institution(s) by Article 16, and through Article 30, the habitual inhabitance became citizens of the GoP.
The pro-Hostile Terrorist Arab Palestinian Consortium can put that all in a blender and twist it all up, but at the end of the day, no matter how they poor it, it will come out in favor of the Israelis.
◈ No court in the world is going to say, on the basis of the Treaty of Lausanne, the State of Israel (the 22d Ranked Country on the Human Development Index) must be disrupted and placed in the hands of the State of Palestine (the 119th Ranked Country on the Human Development Index).
◈ No Court in the world is going to say that a State has no right or duty to protect its territory and its citizens from a pro-Hostile Terrorist Arab Palestinian Consortium - and then call that protection "Apartheid."
◈ And no chamber of law is going to say that the population of any entity that reverse people like Dalal al-Maghribi is not a terrorist supporting nation and turn around and declare it "name calling." And no chamber of law is going to declare arson, suicide bombing, kidnap and murder, hijackings, and incitement to violence - targeting civilians is going to say this is legitimate agression.
There is no nation in the world that has not made mistakes. The more active in world affairs the greater the probability of mistakes. But this does not apply to the pro-Hostile Terrorist Arab Palestinian Consortium which conducts "criminal acts" directed against Israel, intended or calculated to create "terror" in the minds of the citizenry and general public. No valid legal mechanism in the world is going to say that Protected Persons
(Hostile Arab Palestinians) who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, which make attempts on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, that constitute a grave collective danger, or seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by occupying forces, is in any way legitimate
(certainly not any of the top ten most powerful nations of the world).
Most Respectfully,
R
Please expound.
