Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
37,563
Reaction score
4,132
Points
1,130
Article 16 did not address "New States." It said "the future of these territories" and "to be settled by the parties concerned."
And what were these "new territories?" Article 30 said "new states."

And who were these "parties concerned?" Were they the allied parties who had a no annexation agreement and no sovereignty over the territories? Or, were they the new states who were transferred the territories? The people who were the citizens of these new states?
Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne does not contain the phrase ''new states''.

You are deflecting again.

You are again attempting to reinvent, rewrite history. That's dishonest.

What new states?

Link ?
NATIONALITY.​
ARTICLE 30.​
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.


What makes you think that the territories detached from Turkey would not be new states?
You are deflecting again.

Where in Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne is ''new states'' written?

Your hurt feelings about being called out for such dishonesty is yours to address.
 

RoccoR

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
10,334
Reaction score
2,718
Points
290
Location
Reynoldsburg, OH
RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: This is all about what YOU want it to mean, and not what the principal actors of a Century ago meant when they wrote it and for the decades afterward.

NATIONALITY.
ARTICLE 30.
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.


What makes you think that the territories detached from Turkey would not be new states?

(COMMENT)


For the purposes of our discussion, the Turkish Republic transferred the Title and Rights to the Allied Power. The Allied Powers made a Mandate Government pending the final partition of statehood.

Your argument does not fly. The entire League of Nations established the Mandate for Palestine ("the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them"). The final determination was not affixed.

You are getting desperate here. Remember Article 16 in among the "Territorial Clauses" and Article 30 is NOT.
SIGIL PAIR.png
Most Respectfully,
R
 
OP
P F Tinmore

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
59,858
Reaction score
2,582
Points
1,815
For the purposes of our discussion, the Turkish Republic transferred the Title and Rights to the Allied Power.
Where does it say that? The land and nationality went to the new states.

How then do the title and rights go to someone else?

You don't make any sense.
 
OP
P F Tinmore

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
59,858
Reaction score
2,582
Points
1,815
Joseph Massad on Peace Is War - Israeli settler colonialism, and the Palestinians

 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
37,563
Reaction score
4,132
Points
1,130
For the purposes of our discussion, the Turkish Republic transferred the Title and Rights to the Allied Power.
Where does it say that? The land and nationality went to the new states.

How then do the title and rights go to someone else?

You don't make any sense.
You're deflecting again.

What new states?

You're inventing a version of history that doesn't exist outside of the P F Tinmore imagination. What new states were created and can you identify those new states?

Link?
 

RoccoR

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
10,334
Reaction score
2,718
Points
290
Location
Reynoldsburg, OH
RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Some people just don't have the ability to understand and apply certain concepts.

You don't make any sense.
(COMMENT)

◈' The Power and Authority rest with the agreement between the parties to the agreement.​
◈'' The Turkish (party) relinquished the Title and Rights to the concerned parties (multiple Allied Powers).​
◈''' Both parties agree that, no matter how the boundary lines are drawn, the people that live within those boundaries pick up the new nationality.​

The nationality does not set the boundaries. It is the boundaries that set the nationalities. And the Allied Powers set the boundaries. " Syria was set by the "frontier described in Article 8 of the Franco-Turkish Agreement of the 20th October 1921." From that point, the Mandate boundaries that partitioned Syria were determined between France and Great Britian (Treaty # 564). Treaty #564 is the Franco-British Convention of 23 December 1920. It is this Convention that documents the settlement of problems raised by the attribution connected with the French Mandates for Syria and Lebanon, as they relate to the Mandates for Palestine and Mesopotamia."

Like solutions in Mathematics, some political determation reaches a point where they cannot be simplified any further. As I noted in an earlier discussion, the entirety of these Treaties and Agreements have all been overtaken by events through the decisions outlined in documents I mentioned in Posting #631 of this thread.

SIGIL PAIR.png
Most Respectfully,
R
 
OP
P F Tinmore

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
59,858
Reaction score
2,582
Points
1,815
RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Some people just don't have the ability to understand and apply certain concepts.

You don't make any sense.
(COMMENT)

◈' The Power and Authority rest with the agreement between the parties to the agreement.​
◈'' The Turkish (party) relinquished the Title and Rights to the concerned parties (multiple Allied Powers).​
◈''' Both parties agree that, no matter how the boundary lines are drawn, the people that live within those boundaries pick up the new nationality.​

The nationality does not set the boundaries. It is the boundaries that set the nationalities. And the Allied Powers set the boundaries. " Syria was set by the "frontier described in Article 8 of the Franco-Turkish Agreement of the 20th October 1921." From that point, the Mandate boundaries that partitioned Syria were determined between France and Great Britian (Treaty # 564). Treaty #564 is the Franco-British Convention of 23 December 1920. It is this Convention that documents the settlement of problems raised by the attribution connected with the French Mandates for Syria and Lebanon, as they relate to the Mandates for Palestine and Mesopotamia."

Like solutions in Mathematics, some political determation reaches a point where they cannot be simplified any further. As I noted in an earlier discussion, the entirety of these Treaties and Agreements have all been overtaken by events through the decisions outlined in documents I mentioned in Posting #631 of this thread.

SIGIL PAIR.png
Most Respectfully,
R
OK? Where in all that is the answer to my question?
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
37,563
Reaction score
4,132
Points
1,130
RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Some people just don't have the ability to understand and apply certain concepts.

You don't make any sense.
(COMMENT)

◈' The Power and Authority rest with the agreement between the parties to the agreement.​
◈'' The Turkish (party) relinquished the Title and Rights to the concerned parties (multiple Allied Powers).​
◈''' Both parties agree that, no matter how the boundary lines are drawn, the people that live within those boundaries pick up the new nationality.​

The nationality does not set the boundaries. It is the boundaries that set the nationalities. And the Allied Powers set the boundaries. " Syria was set by the "frontier described in Article 8 of the Franco-Turkish Agreement of the 20th October 1921." From that point, the Mandate boundaries that partitioned Syria were determined between France and Great Britian (Treaty # 564). Treaty #564 is the Franco-British Convention of 23 December 1920. It is this Convention that documents the settlement of problems raised by the attribution connected with the French Mandates for Syria and Lebanon, as they relate to the Mandates for Palestine and Mesopotamia."

Like solutions in Mathematics, some political determation reaches a point where they cannot be simplified any further. As I noted in an earlier discussion, the entirety of these Treaties and Agreements have all been overtaken by events through the decisions outlined in documents I mentioned in Posting #631 of this thread.

SIGIL PAIR.png
Most Respectfully,
R
OK? Where in all that is the answer to my question?
In all that which you deflect from.

Now, about those new states you claim existed but can't identify.

You appear rather buffoonish as you sidestep and deflect.
 

RoccoR

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
10,334
Reaction score
2,718
Points
290
Location
Reynoldsburg, OH
RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: OK, I was waiting for that. How did I know you were going to say that?
...........Some people just don't have the ability to understand and apply certain concepts.

What makes you think that the territories detached from Turkey would not be new states?

Where does it say that? The land and nationality went to the new states.

How then do the title and rights go to someone else?

You don't make any sense.
OK? Where in all that is the answer to my question?
(COMMENT)

It is called an evidentuary walk-thru. It connects the dots. Authors write entire books on the subject, I'm just giving a thumbnail view.

The odd thing is... The State of Palestine as it was declared in 2012, is still being contested. The Arab Palestinians never had effective or sovereign control over any part excpet the Gaza Strip and Area "A".

SIGIL PAIR.png
Most Respectfully,
R
 
OP
P F Tinmore

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
59,858
Reaction score
2,582
Points
1,815
RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: OK, I was waiting for that. How did I know you were going to say that?
...........Some people just don't have the ability to understand and apply certain concepts.

What makes you think that the territories detached from Turkey would not be new states?

Where does it say that? The land and nationality went to the new states.

How then do the title and rights go to someone else?

You don't make any sense.
OK? Where in all that is the answer to my question?
(COMMENT)

It is called an evidentuary walk-thru. It connects the dots. Authors write entire books on the subject, I'm just giving a thumbnail view.

The odd thing is... The State of Palestine as it was declared in 2012, is still being contested. The Arab Palestinians never had effective or sovereign control over any part excpet the Gaza Strip and Area "A".


SIGIL PAIR.png
Most Respectfully,
R
Am I missing something? I can't find where you addressed my post.
 

toastman

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2012
Messages
16,255
Reaction score
2,068
Points
245
RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: This is all about what YOU want it to mean, and not what the principal actors of a Century ago meant when they wrote it and for the decades afterward.

NATIONALITY.
ARTICLE 30.
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.


What makes you think that the territories detached from Turkey would not be new states?
(COMMENT)

For the purposes of our discussion, the Turkish Republic transferred the Title and Rights to the Allied Power. The Allied Powers made a Mandate Government pending the final partition of statehood.

Your argument does not fly. The entire League of Nations established the Mandate for Palestine ("the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them"). The final determination was not affixed.

You are getting desperate here. Remember Article 16 in among the "Territorial Clauses" and Article 30 is NOT.
SIGIL PAIR.png
Most Respectfully,
R
BINGO ! It is all about what Tinmore wants it to mean. He is so detached from reality, that he makes up his own history .
 

toastman

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2012
Messages
16,255
Reaction score
2,068
Points
245
RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: OK, I was waiting for that. How did I know you were going to say that?
...........Some people just don't have the ability to understand and apply certain concepts.

What makes you think that the territories detached from Turkey would not be new states?

Where does it say that? The land and nationality went to the new states.

How then do the title and rights go to someone else?

You don't make any sense.
OK? Where in all that is the answer to my question?
(COMMENT)

It is called an evidentuary walk-thru. It connects the dots. Authors write entire books on the subject, I'm just giving a thumbnail view.

The odd thing is... The State of Palestine as it was declared in 2012, is still being contested. The Arab Palestinians never had effective or sovereign control over any part excpet the Gaza Strip and Area "A".


SIGIL PAIR.png
Most Respectfully,
R
Am I missing something? I can't find where you addressed my post.
Yes, you are missing something. Actually you’re missing everything .
If you can’t find where he addressed your post....
Actually, I think you CHOSE not to pay attention to the past of his post that addressed yours ..
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
37,563
Reaction score
4,132
Points
1,130
RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Some people just don't have the ability to understand and apply certain concepts.

You don't make any sense.
(COMMENT)

◈' The Power and Authority rest with the agreement between the parties to the agreement.​
◈'' The Turkish (party) relinquished the Title and Rights to the concerned parties (multiple Allied Powers).​
◈''' Both parties agree that, no matter how the boundary lines are drawn, the people that live within those boundaries pick up the new nationality.​

The nationality does not set the boundaries. It is the boundaries that set the nationalities. And the Allied Powers set the boundaries. " Syria was set by the "frontier described in Article 8 of the Franco-Turkish Agreement of the 20th October 1921." From that point, the Mandate boundaries that partitioned Syria were determined between France and Great Britian (Treaty # 564). Treaty #564 is the Franco-British Convention of 23 December 1920. It is this Convention that documents the settlement of problems raised by the attribution connected with the French Mandates for Syria and Lebanon, as they relate to the Mandates for Palestine and Mesopotamia."

Like solutions in Mathematics, some political determation reaches a point where they cannot be simplified any further. As I noted in an earlier discussion, the entirety of these Treaties and Agreements have all been overtaken by events through the decisions outlined in documents I mentioned in Posting #631 of this thread.

SIGIL PAIR.png
Most Respectfully,
R
OK? Where in all that is the answer to my question?
Still deflecting on those 'new states'' you claim are defined in the Treaty of Lausanne.

Please identify where those are named in Article 30.

Link?
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
37,563
Reaction score
4,132
Points
1,130
I found the text of the Treaty of Lausanne. Article 30 doesn’t contain anything about “new states” as you described.

Maybe there’s a different version or a revised edition?

link?



ARTICLE 30.

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.
 

RoccoR

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
10,334
Reaction score
2,718
Points
290
Location
Reynoldsburg, OH
RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ Hollie, et al,

BLUF: Hollie... YOU are right on the money.

I found the text of the Treaty of Lausanne. Article 30 doesn’t contain anything about “new states” as you described.
Maybe there’s a different version or a revised edition?
link?

ARTICLE 30.

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.
(COMMENT)

Looking back over the responses, one of the misunderstanding I think P F Tinmore has, is buried in the statement where he say "Palestine has borders"
(something to that effect). Actually, the initial demarcations were generally agreed upon in 1920.
FRANCO-BRITISH CONVENTION ON CERTAIN POINTS CONNECTED WITH THE MANDATES FOR SYRIA AND THE LEBANON said:
The British and French Governments, respectively represented by the undersigned Plenipotentiaries, wishing to settle completely the problems raised by the attribution to Great Britain of the mandates for Palestine and Mesopotamia and by the attribution to France of the mandate over Syria and the Lebanon, all three conferred by the Supreme Council at San Remo, have agreed on the following provisions:-

Article 1
The boundaries between the territories under the French mandate of Syria and the Lebanon on the one hand and the British mandates of Mesopotamia and Palestine on the other are determined as follows:- →
SOURCE: Treaty #564


The key here is that P F Tinmore insists that the boundary denotes the "New State." I've explained the status a number of different ways, and that he is misinterpreting "Palestine" incorrectly. He does not get it that the status deals with the Territories under the Mandate.

If he cannot grasp it, then there is nothing we can do. We need to move on to the issues of the present day.
SIGIL PAIR.png
Most Respectfully,
R
 
OP
P F Tinmore

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
59,858
Reaction score
2,582
Points
1,815
I found the text of the Treaty of Lausanne. Article 30 doesn’t contain anything about “new states” as you described.

Maybe there’s a different version or a revised edition?

link?



ARTICLE 30.

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.
That is more clear than Rocco's rambling, irrelevant posts.
 
OP
P F Tinmore

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
59,858
Reaction score
2,582
Points
1,815
RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ Hollie, et al,

BLUF: Hollie... YOU are right on the money.

I found the text of the Treaty of Lausanne. Article 30 doesn’t contain anything about “new states” as you described.
Maybe there’s a different version or a revised edition?
link?

ARTICLE 30.

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.
(COMMENT)

Looking back over the responses, one of the misunderstanding I think P F Tinmore has, is buried in the statement where he say "Palestine has borders"
(something to that effect). Actually, the initial demarcations were generally agreed upon in 1920.
FRANCO-BRITISH CONVENTION ON CERTAIN POINTS CONNECTED WITH THE MANDATES FOR SYRIA AND THE LEBANON said:
The British and French Governments, respectively represented by the undersigned Plenipotentiaries, wishing to settle completely the problems raised by the attribution to Great Britain of the mandates for Palestine and Mesopotamia and by the attribution to France of the mandate over Syria and the Lebanon, all three conferred by the Supreme Council at San Remo, have agreed on the following provisions:-
Article 1

The boundaries between the territories under the French mandate of Syria and the Lebanon on the one hand and the British mandates of Mesopotamia and Palestine on the other are determined as follows:- →
SOURCE: Treaty #564


The key here is that P F Tinmore insists that the boundary denotes the "New State." I've explained the status a number of different ways, and that he is misinterpreting "Palestine" incorrectly. He does not get it that the status deals with the Territories under the Mandate.

If he cannot grasp it, then there is nothing we can do. We need to move on to the issues of the present day.
SIGIL PAIR.png
Most Respectfully,
R
OK, I am ready for a laugh. Explain to me how Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, and Palestine were not new states.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top