Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.

[P F Tinmore]

And out of those all so many changes, how many times did the indigenous population actually inherent control?

And those indigenous stayed and put down roots. They are the ones who built the cities, towns, and villages. They are the owners of the land.

Holy duck Batman ! Why did you so blatantly duck his question ?

Rocco confuses military control with sovereignty.

 

[Hollie]

And out of those all so many changes, how many times did the indigenous population actually inherent control?

And those indigenous stayed and put down roots. They are the ones who built the cities, towns, and villages. They are the owners of the land.

Holy duck Batman ! Why did you so blatantly duck his question ?

Rocco confuses military control with sovereignty.

You confuse Islamic occupation with ownership.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Terminology: Military Control 'vs' Sovereignty ...
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

PREFACE: When I use the terms, I use them very specifically. And I have said, Military Control ≠ Sovereignty (They are NOT interchangeable Terms.)

BLUF: Military Control has an impact on Sovereignty:

◈. You can have Military Control and no Sovereignty​

◈. You can have Military Control with Sovereignty​

Rocco confuses military control with sovereignty.

(REFERENCE)

territorial sovereignty • This is an aspect of sovereignty , connoting the internal, rather than the external, manifestation of the principle of sovereignty. It is the ‘principle of the exclusive competence of the State in regard to its own territory . . . Territorial sovereignty is, in general, a situation recognized and delimited in space . . . [and] signifies independence. Independence in regard to a portion of the globe is the right to exercise therein, to the exclusion of any other State, the functions of a State’: Arbitrator Max Huber in the Island of Palmas Case ( 1928 ) 2 R.I.A.A. 829 at 838.
SOURCE: Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law,
John P. Grant and J. Craig Barker. -- 3rd ed. Copyright ˝ 2009 by Oxford University Press, Inc. pp 598-599

effectivites An application of the effectiveness principle ( see effectiveness, principle of ), effectivités are acts by a State relevant to a claim of title to territory by occupation or prescription ( see prescription, acquisitive ), the factual elements that demonstrate the exercise of governmental authority in a territory. See Burkina Faso/Mali Frontier Dispute Case 1986 I.C.J. Rep. 587 ; Libya–Chad Territorial Dispute 1994 I.C.J. Rep. 38 ; Land, Island, and Maritime Frontier Dispute Case 1992 I.C.J. Rep. 397 ; Cameroon–Nigeria Boundary Case 2002 I.C.J. Rep. 68 ; Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan Case 2002 I.C.J. Rep. 625 ; Nicaragua–Honduras Territorial and Maritime Dispute in the Caribbean Sea Case 2007 I.C.J. Rep. 3 .
SOURCE: Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law,
John P. Grant and J. Craig Barker. -- 3rd ed. Copyright ˝ 2009 by Oxford University Press, Inc. pp 177

occupation: Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.
SOURCE: Article 42 Hague Regulation 1907

(COMMENT)

IF country "A" extends its authority into some territory of Country "B," THEN that territory to which COUNTRY "A" establishes its power to restore, and ensure, public order and safety is under military occupied.

IF Country "B" does not exercise exclusive competence of the State in regard to its own territory, THEN Country "B" does not have territorial sovereignty.

IF Country "A" has a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), which delimits actual authority in favor of Country "B". THEN Country "B" is still sovereign over that territory.

IF Country "A" has extended full civil and security control over some territory of Country "B" absent any other limitation and Country "B" can NOT demonstrate the exercise of governmental authority in a territory to the exclusion of any Country "A", THEN country "B" does not have true sovereignty over that portion of the territory.

WHAT does the deceptive argument say?

What happens when Country "A" declined sovereignty but maintains full civil and security control over some territory?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Terminology: Military Control 'vs' Sovereignty ...
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

PREFACE: When I use the terms, I use them very specifically. And I have said, Military Control ≠ Sovereignty (They are NOT interchangeable Terms.)

BLUF: Military Control has an impact on Sovereignty:

◈. You can have Military Control and no Sovereignty​

◈. You can have Military Control with Sovereignty​

Rocco confuses military control with sovereignty.

(REFERENCE)

territorial sovereignty • This is an aspect of sovereignty , connoting the internal, rather than the external, manifestation of the principle of sovereignty. It is the ‘principle of the exclusive competence of the State in regard to its own territory . . . Territorial sovereignty is, in general, a situation recognized and delimited in space . . . [and] signifies independence. Independence in regard to a portion of the globe is the right to exercise therein, to the exclusion of any other State, the functions of a State’: Arbitrator Max Huber in the Island of Palmas Case ( 1928 ) 2 R.I.A.A. 829 at 838.
SOURCE: Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law,
John P. Grant and J. Craig Barker. -- 3rd ed. Copyright ˝ 2009 by Oxford University Press, Inc. pp 598-599

effectivites An application of the effectiveness principle ( see effectiveness, principle of ), effectivités are acts by a State relevant to a claim of title to territory by occupation or prescription ( see prescription, acquisitive ), the factual elements that demonstrate the exercise of governmental authority in a territory. See Burkina Faso/Mali Frontier Dispute Case 1986 I.C.J. Rep. 587 ; Libya–Chad Territorial Dispute 1994 I.C.J. Rep. 38 ; Land, Island, and Maritime Frontier Dispute Case 1992 I.C.J. Rep. 397 ; Cameroon–Nigeria Boundary Case 2002 I.C.J. Rep. 68 ; Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan Case 2002 I.C.J. Rep. 625 ; Nicaragua–Honduras Territorial and Maritime Dispute in the Caribbean Sea Case 2007 I.C.J. Rep. 3 .
SOURCE: Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law,
John P. Grant and J. Craig Barker. -- 3rd ed. Copyright ˝ 2009 by Oxford University Press, Inc. pp 177

occupation: Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.
SOURCE: Article 42 Hague Regulation 1907

(COMMENT)

IF country "A" extends its authority into some territory of Country "B," THEN that territory to which COUNTRY "A" establishes its power to restore, and ensure, public order and safety is under military occupied.

IF Country "B" does not exercise exclusive competence of the State in regard to its own territory, THEN Country "B" does not have territorial sovereignty.

IF Country "A" has a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), which delimits actual authority in favor of Country "B". THEN Country "B" is still sovereign over that territory.

IF Country "A" has extended full civil and security control over some territory of Country "B" absent any other limitation and Country "B" can NOT demonstrate the exercise of governmental authority in a territory to the exclusion of any Country "A", THEN country "B" does not have true sovereignty over that portion of the territory.

WHAT does the deceptive argument say?

What happens when Country "A" declined sovereignty but maintains full civil and security control over some territory?

Most Respectfully,
R

There are two elements of effective occupation. One is the intention and will to act as sovereign (animus), and two is the peaceful and continuous display of state authority (factum). The intention can be displayed from the simple fact of publishing notices of sovereignty in various state journals or issuing laws on territorial assertions. The display of state authority must be peaceful and continuous. ​

When has the occupation of Palestine ever been peaceful?

Conquest is acquiring territory by the use of force. The practice before was after conquest, the conqueror annexed the conquered territory to his state. Thus, conquest first takes place followed by annexation. But with the establishment of the United Nations, conquest is no longer acceptable in the international community.​

 

[Hollie]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Terminology: Military Control 'vs' Sovereignty ...
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

PREFACE: When I use the terms, I use them very specifically. And I have said, Military Control ≠ Sovereignty (They are NOT interchangeable Terms.)

BLUF: Military Control has an impact on Sovereignty:

◈. You can have Military Control and no Sovereignty​

◈. You can have Military Control with Sovereignty​

Rocco confuses military control with sovereignty.

(REFERENCE)

territorial sovereignty • This is an aspect of sovereignty , connoting the internal, rather than the external, manifestation of the principle of sovereignty. It is the ‘principle of the exclusive competence of the State in regard to its own territory . . . Territorial sovereignty is, in general, a situation recognized and delimited in space . . . [and] signifies independence. Independence in regard to a portion of the globe is the right to exercise therein, to the exclusion of any other State, the functions of a State’: Arbitrator Max Huber in the Island of Palmas Case ( 1928 ) 2 R.I.A.A. 829 at 838.
SOURCE: Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law,
John P. Grant and J. Craig Barker. -- 3rd ed. Copyright ˝ 2009 by Oxford University Press, Inc. pp 598-599

effectivites An application of the effectiveness principle ( see effectiveness, principle of ), effectivités are acts by a State relevant to a claim of title to territory by occupation or prescription ( see prescription, acquisitive ), the factual elements that demonstrate the exercise of governmental authority in a territory. See Burkina Faso/Mali Frontier Dispute Case 1986 I.C.J. Rep. 587 ; Libya–Chad Territorial Dispute 1994 I.C.J. Rep. 38 ; Land, Island, and Maritime Frontier Dispute Case 1992 I.C.J. Rep. 397 ; Cameroon–Nigeria Boundary Case 2002 I.C.J. Rep. 68 ; Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan Case 2002 I.C.J. Rep. 625 ; Nicaragua–Honduras Territorial and Maritime Dispute in the Caribbean Sea Case 2007 I.C.J. Rep. 3 .
SOURCE: Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law,
John P. Grant and J. Craig Barker. -- 3rd ed. Copyright ˝ 2009 by Oxford University Press, Inc. pp 177

occupation: Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.
SOURCE: Article 42 Hague Regulation 1907

(COMMENT)

IF country "A" extends its authority into some territory of Country "B," THEN that territory to which COUNTRY "A" establishes its power to restore, and ensure, public order and safety is under military occupied.

IF Country "B" does not exercise exclusive competence of the State in regard to its own territory, THEN Country "B" does not have territorial sovereignty.

IF Country "A" has a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), which delimits actual authority in favor of Country "B". THEN Country "B" is still sovereign over that territory.

IF Country "A" has extended full civil and security control over some territory of Country "B" absent any other limitation and Country "B" can NOT demonstrate the exercise of governmental authority in a territory to the exclusion of any Country "A", THEN country "B" does not have true sovereignty over that portion of the territory.

WHAT does the deceptive argument say?

What happens when Country "A" declined sovereignty but maintains full civil and security control over some territory?

Most Respectfully,
R

There are two elements of effective occupation. One is the intention and will to act as sovereign (animus), and two is the peaceful and continuous display of state authority (factum). The intention can be displayed from the simple fact of publishing notices of sovereignty in various state journals or issuing laws on territorial assertions. The display of state authority must be peaceful and continuous. ​

When has the occupation of Palestine ever been peaceful?

Conquest is acquiring territory by the use of force. The practice before was after conquest, the conqueror annexed the conquered territory to his state. Thus, conquest first takes place followed by annexation. But with the establishment of the United Nations, conquest is no longer acceptable in the international community.​

Islamic invasions and occupations have never been peaceful.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Terminology: Military Control 'vs' Sovereignty ...
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

PREFACE: Again, I am a layman. But I don't think you have that right.

BLUF: The term "animus" does mean "will" or "intent." The operative operative word after "animus" is (the intent to do what) and you gave us "factum;" which means:​

​

FACTUM​

Lat.: a deed, or accomplishment. With respect to a change in a person's domicile, the factum is the person's physical presence in the new domicile. In civil law the word factum distinguishes a matter of fact from a matter of law.​

How does that work?

There are two elements of effective occupation. One is the intention and will to act as sovereign (animus), and two is the peaceful and continuous display of state authority (factum). The intention can be displayed from the simple fact of publishing notices of sovereignty in various state journals or issuing laws on territorial assertions. The display of state authority must be peaceful and continuous. ​

When has the occupation of Palestine ever been peaceful?

Conquest is acquiring territory by the use of force. The practice before was after conquest, the conqueror annexed the conquered territory to his state. Thus, conquest first takes place followed by annexation. But with the establishment of the United Nations, conquest is no longer acceptable in the international community.​

(A COUPLE POINTS)

Again, did Israel occupy Palestinian sovereign territory??? I think you will find out that it was Jordanian.

Help me out here...

◈. What law says "peaceful and continuous?"​

◈. What law says that Jodan and not abandon the West Bank to the Israelis?​

​

Help me out here...

◈. Which came first, the Jordanian Territory that was Occupied by Israel?​

​

◈. When did Israel take any sovereign territory from the Arab Palestinians?​

​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Terminology: Military Control 'vs' Sovereignty ...
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

PREFACE: Again, I am a layman. But I don't think you have that right.

BLUF: The term "animus" does mean "will" or "intent." The operative operative word after "animus" is (the intent to do what) and you gave us "factum;" which means:​

​

FACTUM​

Lat.: a deed, or accomplishment. With respect to a change in a person's domicile, the factum is the person's physical presence in the new domicile. In civil law the word factum distinguishes a matter of fact from a matter of law.​

How does that work?

There are two elements of effective occupation. One is the intention and will to act as sovereign (animus), and two is the peaceful and continuous display of state authority (factum). The intention can be displayed from the simple fact of publishing notices of sovereignty in various state journals or issuing laws on territorial assertions. The display of state authority must be peaceful and continuous. ​

When has the occupation of Palestine ever been peaceful?

Conquest is acquiring territory by the use of force. The practice before was after conquest, the conqueror annexed the conquered territory to his state. Thus, conquest first takes place followed by annexation. But with the establishment of the United Nations, conquest is no longer acceptable in the international community.​

(A COUPLE POINTS)

Again, did Israel occupy Palestinian sovereign territory??? I think you will find out that it was Jordanian.

Help me out here...

◈. What law says "peaceful and continuous?"​

◈. What law says that Jodan and not abandon the West Bank to the Israelis?​

​

Help me out here...

◈. Which came first, the Jordanian Territory that was Occupied by Israel?​

​

◈. When did Israel take any sovereign territory from the Arab Palestinians?​

​

Most Respectfully,
R

Again, did Israel occupy Palestinian sovereign territory??? I think you will find out that it was Jordanian.

I wasn't talking about 1967.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Terminology: Military Control 'vs' Sovereignty ...
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: OK, what are you talking about.​

I wasn't talking about 1967.

(COMMENT)

Stop being so mysterious. Because after June 1920 and before 1967, I really don't see an example of an occupation.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Terminology: Military Control 'vs' Sovereignty ...
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: OK, what are you talking about.​

I wasn't talking about 1967.

(COMMENT)

Stop being so mysterious. Because after June 1920 and before 1967, I really don't see an example of an occupation.

Most Respectfully,
R

So then, what was 1948? Occupation? Conquest?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Occupation
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: In May 1948, Israel exercised its Right to Self-Determination.

I wasn't talking about 1967.

So then, what was 1948? Occupation? Conquest?

(COMMENT)

SHORT ANSWER: It was a "transfer" action. (Trustee to Independent Goverment)

◈. The The Principle Allied Powers acquired the territory (of Palestine) through Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne.​

◈. The Allied Powers decided to place the territory under a Mandate to the British Empire.​

◈. The UN acquired the territory under the Chapter XII: International Trusteeship System (Articles 77)​

◈. The United Nations Palestine Commission (UNPC) was created by United Nations Resolution 181. It was responsible for implementing the UN Partition Plan of Palestine and acting as the Provisional Government of Palestine. The United Nations Palestine Commission was subordinate activity reporting to the Security Council.​

◈. The Government of the United Kingdom, in a memorandum, on the "Legal Meaning of the Termination of the Mandate", has advised the UNPC that so far as the Mandatory Power is concerned the UNPC will be the Government of Palestine after 15 May 1948.​

◈. Israel was a participant to the UNPC working Group that was establishing the necessary self-government institutions for independence. However the Arab Palestines declined to participate.​

◈. On midnight 14/15 May 1952 The National Council For the Jewish State declared Independence and applied for UN recognition. The Arab Higher Committee (AHC) transmitted its displeasure and refused to recongnize the UN Resolution and anything derived from it.​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[toastman]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Terminology: Military Control 'vs' Sovereignty ...
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: OK, what are you talking about.​

I wasn't talking about 1967.

(COMMENT)

Stop being so mysterious. Because after June 1920 and before 1967, I really don't see an example of an occupation.

Most Respectfully,
R

So then, what was 1948? Occupation? Conquest?

Well you keep trying to convince us that Israel declaring independence was never legit because they did not follow some mythical rules that you yourself made up.
So why don’t you tell us what set of rules that Israel needed to have followed in order to legally declare independence , and provide links to prove these rules are factual .

 

[P F Tinmore]

The The Principle Allied Powers acquired the territory (of Palestine) through Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne.

No they didn't.

Link?

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Terminology: Military Control 'vs' Sovereignty ...
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: OK, what are you talking about.​

I wasn't talking about 1967.

(COMMENT)

Stop being so mysterious. Because after June 1920 and before 1967, I really don't see an example of an occupation.

Most Respectfully,
R

So then, what was 1948? Occupation? Conquest?

Well you keep trying to convince us that Israel declaring independence was never legit because they did not follow some mythical rules that you yourself made up.
So why don’t you tell us what set of rules that Israel needed to have followed in order to legally declare independence , and provide links to prove these rules are factual .

Israel declared independence without a defined territory. Israel still has no defined territory.

 

[rylah]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Terminology: Military Control 'vs' Sovereignty ...
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: OK, what are you talking about.​

I wasn't talking about 1967.

(COMMENT)

Stop being so mysterious. Because after June 1920 and before 1967, I really don't see an example of an occupation.

Most Respectfully,
R

So then, what was 1948? Occupation? Conquest?

Well you keep trying to convince us that Israel declaring independence was never legit because they did not follow some mythical rules that you yourself made up.
So why don’t you tell us what set of rules that Israel needed to have followed in order to legally declare independence , and provide links to prove these rules are factual .

Israel declared independence without a defined territory. Israel still has no defined territory.

Right, that is if you aim to mislead by leaving out the context.

Indeed, Israel's independence was declared in the midst of a territorial conflict, including a clear expression of good will to negotiate peace with its neighbors. However this does not resulted in superseding of the „de-recognition‟ of the State, and self-determination in the territory vested with the sovereignty of Israel aka the Jewish Nation - by international law.

Nothing can supersede that, except for the sovereign choice of the Jewish Nation itself,
and even that can be chosen to be later reversed invoking same forementioned law.

List of territorial disputes - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Territorial Partition
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: You deny this - and so all I can do is tell you what happened. (And don't tell me that the Allied Power did not claim sovereignty. I did not say they did. They acquired control of the territory → the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

The The Principle Allied Powers acquired the territory (of Palestine) through Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne.

No they didn't.

Link?

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinians were NOT a "Party to the Treaty of Lausanne." A “party” means a State which has consented to be bound by the treaty and for which the treaty (an international agreement concluded between States) is in force. (Article 1 • Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties)

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 provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.​

SOURCE: Article 16 • Treaty of Lausanne​

​

The Arab Palestinians were NOT a signatory to the Treaty, they were NOT invited into the Treaty, and were NOT a state eligible to be a State which took part in the drawing up and adopting of the text of the treaty. The Arab Palestinians were only to received the benefit that the Allied Powers agreed upon themselves as necessary.

I know that many cite Article 30 as distributing territory (new states). But Article 30 only addresses "nationality."

The Treaty of Lausanne (1924) covered the territories renounced by the Turkish Republic; that being Section I • Territorial Clauses. Article 30 is found in Section II • Nationality.

The Treaty of Lausanne (1924) did not mention Palestine by name. The territory of Palestine was covered under the Syria (Article 3); that being from the Mediterranean Sea to the frontier of Persia.

Even if the Allied Powers had NOT partitioned any parcel of land between the Mediterranean Sea to the frontier of Persia, there would be NO Palestine as the Mandate defined it. In fact, there would be NO nations of Lebanon, Jordan, and Iraq. And, Jerusalem would be its own Sanjak along with half the Sinai Desert (North Sinai) that would be included in the Independent Sanjak of Jerusalem. So again, there would be NO Palestine as we know it today, or even in 1922.

It was the strength and meaning the Allied Powers, as the Victors of The Great War (WWI), supported in the text of the Treaty that allowed the Allied Powers to determine the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.
.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Boundaries
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Well, I guess that it is a good thing that Customary International Law says that don't need your interpretation of the real ground truth.​

Israel declared independence without a defined territory. Israel still has no defined territory.

(COMMENT)

Whether or not YOU (and the rest of the Arab Palestinians) recognize the boundaries if Israel as defined (either then in 1948 or now in 2021), the political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states.

AND as our friend "rylah" has said, once recognition of Israel is given it becomes unconditional and irrevocable. The recognition of a state may be express, understood, or implied without being stated.

Most Respectfully,
R

Notes on current recognized boundaries:

◈ Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel •​

​

◈ Golan Heights Law •​

​

◈ Egypt and Israel Treaty of Peace (1979) •​

​

◈ Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements (Oslo I) (1993)​

​

◈ Jordan-Israeli Peace Treaty (1994) •​

​

◈ Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and Gaza Strip (Oslo II) (1995) •​

​

◈ Letter from the Permanent Representative of Lebanon (2000) •​

 

[Hollie]

The The Principle Allied Powers acquired the territory (of Palestine) through Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne.

No they didn't.

Link?

There's that Treaty of Lausanne thing.

Now would be a good time to identify those "new states" you insist were created but can't identify.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Territorial Partition
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: You deny this - and so all I can do is tell you what happened. (And don't tell me that the Allied Power did not claim sovereignty. I did not say they did. They acquired control of the territory → the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

The The Principle Allied Powers acquired the territory (of Palestine) through Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne.

No they didn't.

Link?

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinians were NOT a "Party to the Treaty of Lausanne." A “party” means a State which has consented to be bound by the treaty and for which the treaty (an international agreement concluded between States) is in force. (Article 1 • Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties)

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 provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.​

SOURCE: Article 16 • Treaty of Lausanne​

​

The Arab Palestinians were NOT a signatory to the Treaty, they were NOT invited into the Treaty, and were NOT a state eligible to be a State which took part in the drawing up and adopting of the text of the treaty. The Arab Palestinians were only to received the benefit that the Allied Powers agreed upon themselves as necessary.

I know that many cite Article 30 as distributing territory (new states). But Article 30 only addresses "nationality."

The Treaty of Lausanne (1924) covered the territories renounced by the Turkish Republic; that being Section I • Territorial Clauses. Article 30 is found in Section II • Nationality.

The Treaty of Lausanne (1924) did not mention Palestine by name. The territory of Palestine was covered under the Syria (Article 3); that being from the Mediterranean Sea to the frontier of Persia.

Even if the Allied Powers had NOT partitioned any parcel of land between the Mediterranean Sea to the frontier of Persia, there would be NO Palestine as the Mandate defined it. In fact, there would be NO nations of Lebanon, Jordan, and Iraq. And, Jerusalem would be its own Sanjak along with half the Sinai Desert (North Sinai) that would be included in the Independent Sanjak of Jerusalem. So again, there would be NO Palestine as we know it today, or even in 1922.

It was the strength and meaning the Allied Powers, as the Victors of The Great War (WWI), supported in the text of the Treaty that allowed the Allied Powers to determine the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.
.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Arab Palestinians were NOT a "Party to the Treaty of Lausanne."

Neither was Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Transjordan. Are you trying to make a point here?

(And don't tell me that the Allied Power did not claim sovereignty.

They didn't. So then, whose sovereignty was it?

Link?

 

[P F Tinmore]

AND as our friend "rylah" has said, once recognition of Israel is given it becomes unconditional and irrevocable. The recognition of a state may be express, understood, or implied without being stated.

Palestine was recognized as a state in the Treaty of Lausanne, by the League of Nations, Britain, the Mandate, the US, and by the UN in Resolution 181.

After its declaration of independence in 1948 it was recognized by five Arab League countries.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The The Principle Allied Powers acquired the territory (of Palestine) through Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne.

No they didn't.

Link?

There's that Treaty of Lausanne thing.

Now would be a good time to identify those "new states" you insist were created but can't identify.

Sure, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Transjordan, and Palestine.

You should have known that already.