Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.

[AnOrangeCat]

The mandate was not a place it was an administrarion.

Administrated by whom? The British. Per the League of Nations and the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire at the end of WWI.

There has never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever r ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever been an independent "Palestine".

Never.

 

[P F Tinmore]

SAMIRA AND KATIE HALPER ON ISRAEL PARADE, ANTISEMITISM IN CANADA AND WAR ON IRAN​

 

[Shusha]

Administrated by whom? The British. Per the League of Nations and the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire at the end of WWI.

There has never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever r ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever been an independent "Palestine".

Never.

Since it looks like P F Tinmore isn't going to answer, I'll take a stab at what I believe his claim to be. (He used to participate in discussion, but now he mostly just posts long videos).

It is his claim that the State of Palestine came into being circa 1922 with the Mandate for Palestine as a Class A Mandate to be provisionally recognized in accordance with the League of Nations Article 22 and the subsequent citizenship acts. It was (and remains) one single territorial unit with boundaries laid out in the Mandate for Palestine documents. Its citizens include Jews and Arabs. According to this view, there is a State of Palestine and has been for 104 years. Its just never been self-governing.

I think it is very similar to Ralph Wilde's view. How am I doing P F Tinmore ?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Since it looks like P F Tinmore isn't going to answer, I'll take a stab at what I believe his claim to be. (He used to participate in discussion, but now he mostly just posts long videos).

It is his claim that the State of Palestine came into being circa 1922 with the Mandate for Palestine as a Class A Mandate to be provisionally recognized in accordance with the League of Nations Article 22 and the subsequent citizenship acts. It was (and remains) one single territorial unit with boundaries laid out in the Mandate for Palestine documents. Its citizens include Jews and Arabs. According to this view, there is a State of Palestine and has been for 104 years. Its just never been self-governing.

I think it is very similar to Ralph Wilde's view. How am I doing P F Tinmore ?

Actually, that was pretty good, thanks. I did not respond yet because, contrary to popular belief, I am not on this board 24/7.

If I may add a few things, the international borders were defined by the Sykes–Picot Agreement later to be modified when Transjordan was separated from the rest of Palestine.

The Treaty of Lausanne ceded the territory to the state of Palestine in 1924 and the residents obtained Palestinian nationality. All of the Palestinians obtained Palestinian citizenship in 1925 without regard to race, religion, color, etc..

 

[Shusha]

Actually, that was pretty good, thanks. I did not respond yet because, contrary to popular belief, I am not on this board 24/7.

My apologies. I saw that you were showing online at the time you posted. But I often keep my tab open while doing other work and I assume that shows I am online when I am not.

The Treaty of Lausanne ceded the territory to the state of Palestine in 1924 and the residents obtained Palestinian nationality. All of the Palestinians obtained Palestinian citizenship in 1925 without regard to race, religion, color, etc..

We actually agree. At least to this point. Minor quibble with the terminology "cede to". Turkey did not "cede to", it renounced its claim. Not the same legal concept. It matters because we would have to look to other treaties and documents to follow the emergence new sovereignty. The Treaty of Lausanne only removes Turkey's sovereignty.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Minor quibble with the terminology "cede to". Turkey did not "cede to", it renounced its claim. Not the same legal concept.

It is true. They did not use the term cede to.

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.

I am not sure that there is a difference.

 

[Shusha]

It is true. They did not use the term cede to.

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.

I am not sure that there is a difference.

Sure. But this article in the Treaty of Lausanne does not answer the question as to which State the territory was transferred. For that, we have to look to other treaties and documents.

And who is the decision-maker in this impending transfer? (emphasis mine)

ARTICLE I6.

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.

So far, we don't actually have much of a disagreement. Where we diverge is with the what-happened-next.

 

[ShahdagMountains]

 

[P F Tinmore]

Sure. But this article in the Treaty of Lausanne does not answer the question as to which State the territory was transferred. For that, we have to look to other treaties and documents.

And who is the decision-maker in this impending transfer? (emphasis mine)

ARTICLE I6.

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.

So far, we don't actually have much of a disagreement. Where we diverge is with the what-happened-next.

The international borders of all of the proposed new states were defined by the allied powers. However, none of that could yet be implemented because it was still sovereign Ottoman territory. The Treaty of Lausanne released that territory and it was transferred to the respective new states.

Palestine became a person under international law with:

1. The right to self determination without external interference.
2. The right to independence and sovereignty.
3. The right to territorial integrity.

These rights were reiterated by subsequent UN resolutions. Any violation of these rights is a violation of international law.

 

[Shusha]

The international borders of all of the proposed new states were defined by the allied powers. However, none of that could yet be implemented because it was still sovereign Ottoman territory. The Treaty of Lausanne released that territory and it was transferred to the respective new states.

Palestine became a person under international law with:

1. The right to self determination without external interference.
2. The right to independence and sovereignty.
3. The right to territorial integrity.

These rights were reiterated by subsequent UN resolutions. Any violation of these rights is a violation of international law.

This (in bold) is the only quibble I have with the above. The Mandate was still in place and the territory was administered by Britain. That particular "external interference" was part of the system at the time. I entirely agree with the rest.

 

[P F Tinmore]

IDF CASUALTIES SOAR AS IRGC WARNS ISRAEL: GET OUT OF LEBANON | Esteban Carrillo​