Palestinians want more then the " 67 borders"

[toastman]

You didn't challenge anything I said.

Lets Make this simple. Answer this question with YES or NO or I DON'T KNOW:

The State of Palestine was officially founded on November 15 1988.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

I just typed in Google: When did Palestine become a country and above the beginning of the links, it says: NOVEMBER 15, 1988 STATE OF PALESTINE FOUNDED

Of course, this is only one of the things that Ive shown Tinmore that Palestine the country was founded in 198&.

But according to him, all of the links are wrong and he is right.

The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the perspective of public international law. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British government pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine.”123 And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality.”124

Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​

Article 30 is of a great significance. It constituted a declaration of existing international law and the standard practice of states. This was despite the absence of a definite international law rule of state succession under which the nationals of predecessor state could ipso facto acquire the nationality of the successor.129 “As a rule, however, States have conferred their nationality on the former nationals of the predecessor State.”130 In practice, almost all peace treaties concluded between the Allies and other states at the end of World War I embodied nationality provisions similar to those of the Treaty of Lausanne. The inhabitants of Palestine, as the successors of this territory, henceforth acquired Palestinian nationality even if there was no treaty with Turkey.131

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel

This link proves a couple of things:

1) There were no Palestinians before 1924.

2) Even after 1924, there was no independent Palestinian state. (Just like the Kurds have a nationality but not independence.)

 

[RoccoR]

ForeverYoung436, toastman, P F Tinmore, et al,

In most cases, you'll find you cannot prove the negative.

Where did I say that?

Could you post a quote saying that?

I did. You must have missed it.

Palestine was not a country before 1988. You dont know what you're talking about. If they were already a country, then why did they declare independence in 1988??

Even now, after 1988, it's not a fully independent country.

(COMMENT)

Yes, it is kind of interesting that the State of Palestine is undefined.

• Prior to 1988, Palestine was never treated as a separate and independent state by any nation. Even the members of the Arab League did not afford it that status. In fact, the West Bank was once annexed by a member of the Arab League.

• Based on the contested government, some saying HAMAS is the legitimate government while other say the PLO is the legitimate government, it is not at all clear if the State of Palestine has a competent leadership --- or --- a leadership that is supported and backed by the people.

• Clearly, no matter which side you select as the legitimate government, neither side is exercising uncontested control in both the Gaza Strip and West Bank.

• Clearly, no matter which side you select as the legitimate government, neither side is fully capable of funding a self-sufficient, self-governing institution on its own.

There is a strong argument to be made that the State of Palestine has "a central government so weak or ineffective that it has little practical control over much of its territory; non-provision of public services; widespread corruption and criminality" (a failed state).

PA President, Mahmoud Abbas, effectively ended the peace process when he obtained full membership status at UNESCO in 2011, and non member status on November 29, 2012 when the UN General Assembly voted 138 to 9 to raise the status of the Palestinian Authority. Abbas demanded in memos to UN Secretary General Moon that the PA should be referred to the State of Palestine. The status at the UN brought recognition of the PA as a virtual state with upgrades in diplomatic recognition by a host of countries as a result of an intensive two year lobbying campaign by Abbas across the globe.

That unilateral action by the PA under Abbas at the UN in November 2012 effectively ended the 20 year old Oslo Accords signed on September 13, 1993. Abbas’ unilateral initiative backfired as major donors shied away from providing support for an increasingly corrupt dictatorial regime with few human rights and denial of a free press and free speech; rights guaranteed in the basic law of the PA.

In his new book, State of Failure: Yasser Arafat, Mahmoud Abbas and the Unmaking of the Palestinian State, Dr. Jonathan Schanzer shows how the dysfunctional Palestinian terrorist movement of the PLO was incapable of morphing into a state. That Abbas’ unilateral action at the UN met with indifference and skepticism by the international community. Schanzer’s book is timely as it raises questions whether the current peace process is fallacious, as the pre-conditions for being considered a state under the Montevideo Convention of 1933 are absent.

SOURCE: Palgrave Macmillan, October 2013 ISBN 978-1-137-27824-1

Seldom is it even argument (any more) that the previously held claims to the entire territory, formerly under the Mandate of Palestine, is even considered viable as an option. Even the PLO Negotiation Affair Department has shed that position. While all things are subject to change (especially in the Arab World), the 1967 lines, as a matter of international law and consensus – as embodied in United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 with Map Link of oPt, 338, 1397, 1515, and S/RES/1850 (2008) – and the importance of the Arab Peace Initiative (API - 2002) – the 1967 line marks the division of Israeli territory from the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt). The arguments over the border, and what constitutes this or that, is long over with in terms of the initial starting points or the dilemmas of 1948 and 1949. Today, the issue is over the compromise.

The Arab League endorsed API, as HM King Abdullah outlined, projects "normal relations and security for Israel in exchange for full withdrawal from all occupied Arab territories, recognition of an independent Palestinian state." This is a much more amenable position than the 1967 Khartoum Resolution in which the Arab States agreed to "no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations" with Israel. However, HAMAS still disagrees and rejects the API.

"The so-called new Arab initiative is rejected by our people, by our nation and no one can accept it," Haniyeh (Prime Minister of the Hamas government) said.
... ... ...
"To those who speak of land swaps we say: Palestine is not a property, it is not for sale, not for a swap and cannot be traded," Haniyeh (Prime Minister of the Hamas government) said.

So, we have to see which side wants peace more.

Most respectfully,
R

 

[proudveteran06]

ForeverYoung436, toastman, P F Tinmore, et al,

In most cases, you'll find you cannot prove the negative.

Palestine was not a country before 1988. You dont know what you're talking about. If they were already a country, then why did they declare independence in 1988??

Even now, after 1988, it's not a fully independent country.

(COMMENT)

Yes, it is kind of interesting that the State of Palestine is undefined.

• Prior to 1988, Palestine was never treated as a separate and independent state by any nation. Even the members of the Arab League did not afford it that status. In fact, the West Bank was once annexed by a member of the Arab League.

• Based on the contested government, some saying HAMAS is the legitimate government while other say the PLO is the legitimate government, it is not at all clear if the State of Palestine has a competent leadership --- or --- a leadership that is supported and backed by the people.

• Clearly, no matter which side you select as the legitimate government, neither side is exercising uncontested control in both the Gaza Strip and West Bank.

• Clearly, no matter which side you select as the legitimate government, neither side is fully capable of funding a self-sufficient, self-governing institution on its own.

There is a strong argument to be made that the State of Palestine has "a central government so weak or ineffective that it has little practical control over much of its territory; non-provision of public services; widespread corruption and criminality" (a failed state).

PA President, Mahmoud Abbas, effectively ended the peace process when he obtained full membership status at UNESCO in 2011, and non member status on November 29, 2012 when the UN General Assembly voted 138 to 9 to raise the status of the Palestinian Authority. Abbas demanded in memos to UN Secretary General Moon that the PA should be referred to the State of Palestine. The status at the UN brought recognition of the PA as a virtual state with upgrades in diplomatic recognition by a host of countries as a result of an intensive two year lobbying campaign by Abbas across the globe.

That unilateral action by the PA under Abbas at the UN in November 2012 effectively ended the 20 year old Oslo Accords signed on September 13, 1993. Abbas’ unilateral initiative backfired as major donors shied away from providing support for an increasingly corrupt dictatorial regime with few human rights and denial of a free press and free speech; rights guaranteed in the basic law of the PA.

In his new book, State of Failure: Yasser Arafat, Mahmoud Abbas and the Unmaking of the Palestinian State, Dr. Jonathan Schanzer shows how the dysfunctional Palestinian terrorist movement of the PLO was incapable of morphing into a state. That Abbas’ unilateral action at the UN met with indifference and skepticism by the international community. Schanzer’s book is timely as it raises questions whether the current peace process is fallacious, as the pre-conditions for being considered a state under the Montevideo Convention of 1933 are absent.

SOURCE: Palgrave Macmillan, October 2013 ISBN 978-1-137-27824-1

Seldom is it even argument (any more) that the previously held claims to the entire territory, formerly under the Mandate of Palestine, is even considered viable as an option. Even the PLO Negotiation Affair Department has shed that position. While all things are subject to change (especially in the Arab World), the 1967 lines, as a matter of international law and consensus – as embodied in United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 with Map Link of oPt, 338, 1397, 1515, and S/RES/1850 (2008) – and the importance of the Arab Peace Initiative (API - 2002) – the 1967 line marks the division of Israeli territory from the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt). The arguments over the border, and what constitutes this or that, is long over with in terms of the initial starting points or the dilemmas of 1948 and 1949. Today, the issue is over the compromise.

The Arab League endorsed API, as HM King Abdullah outlined, projects "normal relations and security for Israel in exchange for full withdrawal from all occupied Arab territories, recognition of an independent Palestinian state." This is a much more amenable position than the 1967 Khartoum Resolution in which the Arab States agreed to "no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations" with Israel. However, HAMAS still disagrees and rejects the API.

"The so-called new Arab initiative is rejected by our people, by our nation and no one can accept it," Haniyeh (Prime Minister of the Hamas government) said.
... ... ...
"To those who speak of land swaps we say: Palestine is not a property, it is not for sale, not for a swap and cannot be traded," Haniyeh (Prime Minister of the Hamas government) said.

So, we have to see which side wants peace more.

Most respectfully,
R

It's no longer a question of who wants peace more. It's a question of demanding Israel go back to borders that were never recognized before which would include Israel's most sacred sites and " Right of Return" which eventually would annex Israel to the Palestinian State. Neither is going to happen

 

[Phoenall]

You are babbling.

You didn't refute one thing I said.

because there was nothing to refute apart from your fantasy that Palestine was mentioned in Lausanne.

Where did I say that?

Which I stated was not the case, and that San Remo was drafted into International law as part of the mandate. This set the maps for the partitioning of Palestine into Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Trans Jordan and Israel.

Could you post a quote saying that?

Destroying Palestine completely and wiping out the bad history of the place.

Now try and produce a link that names Palestine as a nation from before 1988 that is accepted as international law

I did. You must have missed it.

In your post

I did you must have missed it

No you provided one persons opinion based on LIES.

 

[Phoenall]

I just typed in Google: When did Palestine become a country and above the beginning of the links, it says: NOVEMBER 15, 1988 STATE OF PALESTINE FOUNDED

Of course, this is only one of the things that Ive shown Tinmore that Palestine the country was founded in 198&.

But according to him, all of the links are wrong and he is right.

The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the perspective of public international law. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British government pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine.”123 And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality.”124

Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​

Article 30 is of a great significance. It constituted a declaration of existing international law and the standard practice of states. This was despite the absence of a definite international law rule of state succession under which the nationals of predecessor state could ipso facto acquire the nationality of the successor.129 “As a rule, however, States have conferred their nationality on the former nationals of the predecessor State.”130 In practice, almost all peace treaties concluded between the Allies and other states at the end of World War I embodied nationality provisions similar to those of the Treaty of Lausanne. The inhabitants of Palestine, as the successors of this territory, henceforth acquired Palestinian nationality even if there was no treaty with Turkey.131

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel

At no time does the treaty of Lausanne mention Palestine, so this means that Palestine is not covered. The part that is article 30 does not say Palestine but in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred. Which means the mandated power that holds the land until such time as the inhabitants can show they are able to govern themselves. The case of Palestine was detailed in the San Remo conference which became International Law.



Here is the full Treaty of Lausanne for you to read

Treaty of Lausanne - World War I Document Archive

 

[Phoenall]

I just typed in Google: When did Palestine become a country and above the beginning of the links, it says: NOVEMBER 15, 1988 STATE OF PALESTINE FOUNDED

Of course, this is only one of the things that Ive shown Tinmore that Palestine the country was founded in 198&.

But according to him, all of the links are wrong and he is right.

The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the perspective of public international law. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British government pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine.”123 And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality.”124

Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​

Article 30 is of a great significance. It constituted a declaration of existing international law and the standard practice of states. This was despite the absence of a definite international law rule of state succession under which the nationals of predecessor state could ipso facto acquire the nationality of the successor.129 “As a rule, however, States have conferred their nationality on the former nationals of the predecessor State.”130 In practice, almost all peace treaties concluded between the Allies and other states at the end of World War I embodied nationality provisions similar to those of the Treaty of Lausanne. The inhabitants of Palestine, as the successors of this territory, henceforth acquired Palestinian nationality even if there was no treaty with Turkey.131

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel

This link proves a couple of things:

1) There were no Palestinians before 1924.

2) Even after 1924, there was no independent Palestinian state. (Just like the Kurds have a nationality but not independence.)

It also shows that the only source is a LYING ISLAMONAZI PALESTINIAN who added the words Palestine and Palestinian to the legal documents he uses. He is not to be trusted by anyone and his evidence would not stand up even in a Palestinian court.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Palestinians don't want '67 borders, they want the whole mandate, without any jews.

It's comments like that which shows the entire world the problem is not the Palestinian's, it's you fuckers!

The Palestinian's want the occupation to end and to be left alone.

That's it!

yep the paid zionist trolls are trolling the boards with their lies with threads like this as always.

 

[Hossfly]

Palestinians don't want '67 borders, they want the whole mandate, without any jews.

It's comments like that which shows the entire world the problem is not the Palestinian's, it's you fuckers!

The Palestinian's want the occupation to end and to be left alone.

That's it!

yep the paid zionist trolls are trolling the boards with their lies with threads like this as always.

Christ on a bloody crutch! When will these Palihoovian shills ever learn that '67 borders are gone with the dodos?

 

[Sally]

It's comments like that which shows the entire world the problem is not the Palestinian's, it's you fuckers!

The Palestinian's want the occupation to end and to be left alone.

That's it!

yep the paid zionist trolls are trolling the boards with their lies with threads like this as always.

Christ on a bloody crutch! When will these Palihoovian shills ever learn that '67 borders are gone with the dodos?

I have a great idea. Why don't we try to have this nut 9/11 Inside Job thrown into the jail cell with one of the two planners of 9/11 who are presently being held. Both Muslim are so proud of what they accomplished, bringing New York City down on its knees, that I don't think 9/11 Inside Job would be walking out on his own two feet. Does this sicko think that no matter how anti-Semitic he is that these extremist Muslims are going to let an Infidel like he is trying to give the credit to others?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Palestinians Want an Even Bigger State Than the 1967 Borders | TheBlaze.com




Palestinians Want an Even Bigger State Than the 1967 Borders


Sep. 27, 2011 12:46am Sharona Schwartz



763

Shares

Share This
Tweet This



...

When the Palestinians presented their bid for statehood at the UN Friday, most news outlets suggested Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas was aiming for a state based on 1967 borders covering only the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem.

A closer look at the actual letter he presented to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon applying for UN membership reveals the Palestinians are aiming for far more territory.

As reprinted in the Telegraph, Abbas’s letter reads:


“This application for membership is being submitted on the Palestinian people’s natural, legal and historic rights and based on United Nations General Assembly resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947 as well as the Declaration of Independence of the State of Palestine of 15 November 1988 and the acknowledgement by the General Assembly of this declaration in resolution 43/177 of 15 December 1988.”

Lots of dates are cited here. Let’s take a closer look. Abbas says his people’s “rights” are based on the 1947 UN Resolution. That year refers to the UN Partition Plan, the same plan all Arab states rejected and the Jews accepted for their homeland, after which those Arab neighbors declared war on Israel.

These maps from GBTV reveal the land allotted to the Jewish State under the 1947 Partition Plan was in fact much smaller than that afforded under 1967 borders.


Palestinians Want Even Bigger State Than 1967 Borders

Palestinians Want Even Bigger State Than 1967 Borders

Though President Obama has endorsed Palestinian demands — stated until now — that their future state be based on 1967 borders, Israel says borders should be based on the outcome of negotiations. If Abbas’s proposal is accepted by the UN Security Council, gone from Israel is Jerusalem its capital and home to the sites most sacred to Jews and Christians. Also gone: Ben Gurion Airport just outside Tel Aviv, the country’s only major international airport.



.
The blog Israel Matzav explains the significance:


“It would mean no Jerusalem and no airport. Even more indefensible borders than the 1949 armistice lines. The ‘Palestinians’ ignore Security Council Resolution 242, which requires that Israel be left with ‘defensible borders’ and says nothing about a ‘Palestinian state.’”

There are other alarming suggestions the Palestinians are not being upfront in stating their intentions regarding the size of the state they aim for.One of the sticking points in restarting negotiations with Israel is the Palestinians’ continued opposition to recognizing Israel as a Jewish State. In fact, last week a round of talks aimed at restarting peace negotiations broke up over “Abbas’ refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish State.”

Secondly, the Palestine Liberation Organization’s current logo on its UN Observer Mission website suggests it wants the entire state of Israel incorporated into its future state – not just the West Bank and Gaza. The map on the logo appears to suggest the goal is to wipe Israel completely off the map. The Weekly Standard posted this:


They are not going to get any of it

Palestinians want more then the " 67 borders"

I want a Unicorn.

What are 2 things that will never happen?

 

[proudveteran06]

Palestinians don't want '67 borders, they want the whole mandate, without any jews.

It's comments like that which shows the entire world the problem is not the Palestinian's, it's you fuckers!

The Palestinian's want the occupation to end and to be left alone.

That's it!

yep the paid zionist trolls are trolling the boards with their lies with threads like this as always.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/wap/Item.aspx?type=0&item=178477


yep, the paid Pro Palestinian trolls are trolling the boards with their lies and telling the world that threads like the above are made up and lies

 

[ForeverYoung436]

I just typed in Google: When did Palestine become a country and above the beginning of the links, it says: NOVEMBER 15, 1988 STATE OF PALESTINE FOUNDED

Of course, this is only one of the things that Ive shown Tinmore that Palestine the country was founded in 198&.

But according to him, all of the links are wrong and he is right.

The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the perspective of public international law. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British government pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine.”123 And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality.”124

Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​

Article 30 is of a great significance. It constituted a declaration of existing international law and the standard practice of states. This was despite the absence of a definite international law rule of state succession under which the nationals of predecessor state could ipso facto acquire the nationality of the successor.129 “As a rule, however, States have conferred their nationality on the former nationals of the predecessor State.”130 In practice, almost all peace treaties concluded between the Allies and other states at the end of World War I embodied nationality provisions similar to those of the Treaty of Lausanne. The inhabitants of Palestine, as the successors of this territory, henceforth acquired Palestinian nationality even if there was no treaty with Turkey.131

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel

At no time does the treaty of Lausanne mention Palestine, so this means that Palestine is not covered. The part that is article 30 does not say Palestine but in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred. Which means the mandated power that holds the land until such time as the inhabitants can show they are able to govern themselves. The case of Palestine was detailed in the San Remo conference which became International Law.



Here is the full Treaty of Lausanne for you to read

Treaty of Lausanne - World War I Document Archive

Wow, this 1924 Treaty that Tinmore keeps touting doesn't even mention Palestine. I feel like such an idiot for believing him.

 

[proudveteran06]

The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the perspective of public international law. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British government pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine.”123 And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality.”124

Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​

Article 30 is of a great significance. It constituted a declaration of existing international law and the standard practice of states. This was despite the absence of a definite international law rule of state succession under which the nationals of predecessor state could ipso facto acquire the nationality of the successor.129 “As a rule, however, States have conferred their nationality on the former nationals of the predecessor State.”130 In practice, almost all peace treaties concluded between the Allies and other states at the end of World War I embodied nationality provisions similar to those of the Treaty of Lausanne. The inhabitants of Palestine, as the successors of this territory, henceforth acquired Palestinian nationality even if there was no treaty with Turkey.131

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel

At no time does the treaty of Lausanne mention Palestine, so this means that Palestine is not covered. The part that is article 30 does not say Palestine but in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred. Which means the mandated power that holds the land until such time as the inhabitants can show they are able to govern themselves. The case of Palestine was detailed in the San Remo conference which became International Law.



Here is the full Treaty of Lausanne for you to read

Treaty of Lausanne - World War I Document Archive

Wow, this 1924 Treaty that Tinmore keeps touting doesn't even mention Palestine. I feel like such an idiot for believing him.

The old man is pathetic. Can't stand the fact that the Jewish State exists.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the perspective of public international law. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British government pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine.”123 And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality.”124

Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​

Article 30 is of a great significance. It constituted a declaration of existing international law and the standard practice of states. This was despite the absence of a definite international law rule of state succession under which the nationals of predecessor state could ipso facto acquire the nationality of the successor.129 “As a rule, however, States have conferred their nationality on the former nationals of the predecessor State.”130 In practice, almost all peace treaties concluded between the Allies and other states at the end of World War I embodied nationality provisions similar to those of the Treaty of Lausanne. The inhabitants of Palestine, as the successors of this territory, henceforth acquired Palestinian nationality even if there was no treaty with Turkey.131

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel

At no time does the treaty of Lausanne mention Palestine, so this means that Palestine is not covered. The part that is article 30 does not say Palestine but in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred. Which means the mandated power that holds the land until such time as the inhabitants can show they are able to govern themselves. The case of Palestine was detailed in the San Remo conference which became International Law.



Here is the full Treaty of Lausanne for you to read

Treaty of Lausanne - World War I Document Archive

Wow, this 1924 Treaty that Tinmore keeps touting doesn't even mention Palestine. I feel like such an idiot for believing him.

Lebanon and Jordan were not mentioned either.

Syria and Iraq were only mentioned because they bordered on Turkey.

SECTION II .
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.

The provisions in the treaty were general and applied to everyone without listing them all separately.

So your statement is completely irrelevant.

 

[Bloodrock44]

Actually Palestine's international borders, its nationality, and citizenship were already determined. However, as long as Palestine was still officially under Turkish control none of that could be legal. Once the Treaty of Lausanne was signed, and Palestine was released from Turkish control, all of that preliminary stuff became legal. This was the same as all the other newly created states in the region.

As you have been told the Palestine then was soooooo much larger than your claimed Palestine now. And the treaty you are using deliberately did not name Palestine because of the proposed break up that would be a slap in the face for the arabs in Iraq, Syria and Jordan. The San Remo conference took precedence over everything else as it set the scene for the partition of Palestine into 5 states, and was entrenched in International law.

Now go away and try looking for the real facts and not the twisted islamonazi lies you spout.

You are babbling.

You didn't refute one thing I said.

Tinman. What is your obsession with Palestinians? Seems your whole life is centered around them. Have you no concern with other conflicts or issues in other parts of the Mideast or the world?

 

[proudveteran06]

As you have been told the Palestine then was soooooo much larger than your claimed Palestine now. And the treaty you are using deliberately did not name Palestine because of the proposed break up that would be a slap in the face for the arabs in Iraq, Syria and Jordan. The San Remo conference took precedence over everything else as it set the scene for the partition of Palestine into 5 states, and was entrenched in International law.

Now go away and try looking for the real facts and not the twisted islamonazi lies you spout.

You are babbling.

You didn't refute one thing I said.

Tinman. What is your obsession with Palestinians? Seems your whole life is centered around them. Have you no concern with other conflicts or issues in other parts of the Mideast or the world?

He is a Palestinian . That is why what Muslims around the World are doing to Christiand doesn't matter to him . That's why all the Hate, bigotry, Anti Semitism that existed in the Muslim/ Arab World don't matter to him . As a matter of fact, he probably agrees with all of it . Consider the source.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Sometimes I have to laugh.

At no time does the treaty of Lausanne mention Palestine, so this means that Palestine is not covered. The part that is article 30 does not say Palestine but in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred. Which means the mandated power that holds the land until such time as the inhabitants can show they are able to govern themselves. The case of Palestine was detailed in the San Remo conference which became International Law.
Here is the full Treaty of Lausanne for you to read

Treaty of Lausanne - World War I Document Archive

Wow, this 1924 Treaty that Tinmore keeps touting doesn't even mention Palestine. I feel like such an idiot for believing him.

Lebanon and Jordan were not mentioned either.

Syria and Iraq were only mentioned because they bordered on Turkey.

SECTION II .
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.

The provisions in the treaty were general and applied to everyone without listing them all separately.

So your statement is completely irrelevant.

(COMMENT)

Again you have your timeline fouled-up.

Lebanon [22 November 1943 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration)] and Jordan [25 May 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)] were not mentioned because they were carve-outs created after the 1924 Treaty of Lausanne. In the Ottoman Empire, there were only "States" (in the Middle East: Syria and Mesopotamia/Iraq) and administrative districts of which Palestine was undefined. The Allied Powers did not particularly care, as the entire landscape was already covered by Mandates put in place years before. In this regard, the intention of the construction of the Treaty, which covered much more than just this one small sector, was to not tamper with the ongoing Mandates originally agreed to in the Sykes-Picot Agreement.

The particular verbiage and legal language used in this case - all came from the same source (the Allied Powers).

The KEY PHRASE in all this is "nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred." In the case of "Palestine" [(remembering it is the Mandate of Palestine)*(within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers)] the territory was transferred to the Mandate.

It should also be remembered that the very same Principal Allied Powers wrote all the major documents we are using as references. They did not write them to conflict.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Sometimes I have to laugh.

Wow, this 1924 Treaty that Tinmore keeps touting doesn't even mention Palestine. I feel like such an idiot for believing him.

Lebanon and Jordan were not mentioned either.

Syria and Iraq were only mentioned because they bordered on Turkey.

SECTION II .
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.

The provisions in the treaty were general and applied to everyone without listing them all separately.

So your statement is completely irrelevant.

(COMMENT)

Again you have your timeline fouled-up.

Lebanon [22 November 1943 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration)] and Jordan [25 May 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)] were not mentioned because they were carve-outs created after the 1924 Treaty of Lausanne. In the Ottoman Empire, there were only "States" (in the Middle East: Syria and Mesopotamia/Iraq) and administrative districts of which Palestine was undefined. The Allied Powers did not particularly care, as the entire landscape was already covered by Mandates put in place years before. In this regard, the intention of the construction of the Treaty, which covered much more than just this one small sector, was to not tamper with the ongoing Mandates originally agreed to in the Sykes-Picot Agreement.

Not true. Palestine's international borders were defined before the Treaty of Lausanne.

With Syria and Lebanon - 1920
With transjordan - 1922
With Egypt - The 1906 border between Egypt and the Ottoman Empire was maintained as the border between Egypt and Palestine.

The particular verbiage and legal language used in this case - all came from the same source (the Allied Powers).

The KEY PHRASE in all this is "nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred." In the case of "Palestine" [(remembering it is the Mandate of Palestine)*(within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers)] the territory was transferred to the Mandate.

Not true. The mandate (Britain) never took possession of Palestinian territory. It remained Palestine.

It should also be remembered that the very same Principal Allied Powers wrote all the major documents we are using as references. They did not write them to conflict.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Bloodrock44]

You are babbling.

You didn't refute one thing I said.

Tinman. What is your obsession with Palestinians? Seems your whole life is centered around them. Have you no concern with other conflicts or issues in other parts of the Mideast or the world?

He is a Palestinian . That is why what Muslims around the World are doing to Christiand doesn't matter to him . That's why all the Hate, bigotry, Anti Semitism that existed in the Muslim/ Arab World don't matter to him . As a matter of fact, he probably agrees with all of it . Consider the source.

Tinman is a Palestinian? That explains it.