I agree and I think P F Tinmore is adding context and intent to the wording of the treaty which are his alone.RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ Hollie, et al,
BLUF: Hollie... YOU are right on the money.
(COMMENT)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?
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.
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.
The wording of Article 30, “State to which such territory is transferred.” does nothing to create any “State of Palestine” which, my impression, is what P F Tinmore insists the Treaty is establishing.
He has spent an entire decade pushing that falsehood and tends to run screaming from any counter to his ‘wants and needs” as he has done in this thread.
Moving to the present day as you describe is necessary as the Middle East is changing and realigning alliances and relations between Arabs and the Jewish State. I’m afraid however that P F Tinmore holds an eternal grievance and that neither time or distance will allow him to let go of.