The Balfour Declaration

[danielpalos]

What objection can there be to a new State and trading partner on Israel's border?

 

[Mindful]

What objection can there be to a new State and trading partner on Israel's border?

The Pals don't really want one. If truth be told.

 

[Hollie]

If the Ottoman Empire died, and to the victors go the spoils, what are you basically making a fuss about?

The Ottomans did not have any more say over the territory. The victorious Allies did. They did what they wanted to do, right or wrong, it worked or not. Iraq, not!
Left the Kurds without a State.

Things will get set the right way, if possible, eventually.

Britain is dying as an Empire? We shall see. During our lifetime, or not.

If the Ottoman Empire died, and to the victors go the spoils, what are you basically making a fuss about?

Not really. The land was ceded to the new successor states. The Mandates did not acquire any land.

Not really. Your invented “country of Pal’istan” was never designated as a successor state.

You continually lie about this.

Decisions of international and national tribunals

The U.S. State Department Digest of International Law says that the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne provided for the application of the principles of state succession to the "A" Mandates. The Treaty of Versailles (1920) provisionally recognized the former Ottoman communities as independent nations. It also required Germany to recognize the disposition of the former Ottoman territories and to recognize the new states laid down within their boundaries. The Treaty of Lausanne required the newly created states that acquired the territory to pay annuities on the Ottoman public debt, and to assume responsibility for the administration of concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans. A dispute regarding the status of the territories was settled by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. It was decided that Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties. In its Judgment No. 5, The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, the Permanent Court of International Justice also decided that Palestine was responsible as the successor state for concessions granted by Ottoman authorities. The Courts of Palestine and Great Britain decided that title to the properties shown on the Ottoman Civil list had been ceded to the government of Palestine as an allied successor state.[16]

State of Palestine: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

I'm not surprised that you, as an expert in international law, would cut and paste from wiki.

Wiki was not a part of the Mandate.

The contention of the plaintiff that Palestine, while under the League of Nations mandate, was not a foreign state within the meaning of the statute is wholly without merit.""In support, the court said that the United States in 1932 had taken the position that Palestine was a state: "This the Executive branch of the Government did in 1932," the court explained, "with respect to the operation of the most favored nations provision in treaties of commerce."84 The court found a reference to the 1932 episode in the State Department's digest of international law, where it is mentioned as indicating that the United States considered that Palestine was a state.

The British government was so anxious to exempt Palestine without losing tariff revenue on goods from the United States and several other states, that it examined the possibility of suing on the matter in the PCIJ. The British government's own legal office advised against suing, however, because the PCIJ had already said that Palestine was a state that was successor to Turkey with respect to the territory of Palestine.

http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1045&context=mjil

I understand you're desperate to re-write history. However, you're approaching the "Conspiracy Theory Zone".

 

[Mindful]

Not really. The land was ceded to the new successor states. The Mandates did not acquire any land.

Not really. Your invented “country of Pal’istan” was never designated as a successor state.

You continually lie about this.

Decisions of international and national tribunals

The U.S. State Department Digest of International Law says that the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne provided for the application of the principles of state succession to the "A" Mandates. The Treaty of Versailles (1920) provisionally recognized the former Ottoman communities as independent nations. It also required Germany to recognize the disposition of the former Ottoman territories and to recognize the new states laid down within their boundaries. The Treaty of Lausanne required the newly created states that acquired the territory to pay annuities on the Ottoman public debt, and to assume responsibility for the administration of concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans. A dispute regarding the status of the territories was settled by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. It was decided that Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties. In its Judgment No. 5, The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, the Permanent Court of International Justice also decided that Palestine was responsible as the successor state for concessions granted by Ottoman authorities. The Courts of Palestine and Great Britain decided that title to the properties shown on the Ottoman Civil list had been ceded to the government of Palestine as an allied successor state.[16]

State of Palestine: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

I'm not surprised that you, as an expert in international law, would cut and paste from wiki.

Wiki was not a part of the Mandate.

The contention of the plaintiff that Palestine, while under the League of Nations mandate, was not a foreign state within the meaning of the statute is wholly without merit.""In support, the court said that the United States in 1932 had taken the position that Palestine was a state: "This the Executive branch of the Government did in 1932," the court explained, "with respect to the operation of the most favored nations provision in treaties of commerce."84 The court found a reference to the 1932 episode in the State Department's digest of international law, where it is mentioned as indicating that the United States considered that Palestine was a state.

The British government was so anxious to exempt Palestine without losing tariff revenue on goods from the United States and several other states, that it examined the possibility of suing on the matter in the PCIJ. The British government's own legal office advised against suing, however, because the PCIJ had already said that Palestine was a state that was successor to Turkey with respect to the territory of Palestine.

http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1045&context=mjil

I understand you're desperate to re-write history. However, you're approaching the "Conspiracy Theory Zone".

One questions his zeal. And his motive.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Not really. The land was ceded to the new successor states. The Mandates did not acquire any land.

Not really. Your invented “country of Pal’istan” was never designated as a successor state.

You continually lie about this.

Decisions of international and national tribunals

The U.S. State Department Digest of International Law says that the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne provided for the application of the principles of state succession to the "A" Mandates. The Treaty of Versailles (1920) provisionally recognized the former Ottoman communities as independent nations. It also required Germany to recognize the disposition of the former Ottoman territories and to recognize the new states laid down within their boundaries. The Treaty of Lausanne required the newly created states that acquired the territory to pay annuities on the Ottoman public debt, and to assume responsibility for the administration of concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans. A dispute regarding the status of the territories was settled by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. It was decided that Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties. In its Judgment No. 5, The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, the Permanent Court of International Justice also decided that Palestine was responsible as the successor state for concessions granted by Ottoman authorities. The Courts of Palestine and Great Britain decided that title to the properties shown on the Ottoman Civil list had been ceded to the government of Palestine as an allied successor state.[16]

State of Palestine: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

I'm not surprised that you, as an expert in international law, would cut and paste from wiki.

Wiki was not a part of the Mandate.

The contention of the plaintiff that Palestine, while under the League of Nations mandate, was not a foreign state within the meaning of the statute is wholly without merit.""In support, the court said that the United States in 1932 had taken the position that Palestine was a state: "This the Executive branch of the Government did in 1932," the court explained, "with respect to the operation of the most favored nations provision in treaties of commerce."84 The court found a reference to the 1932 episode in the State Department's digest of international law, where it is mentioned as indicating that the United States considered that Palestine was a state.

The British government was so anxious to exempt Palestine without losing tariff revenue on goods from the United States and several other states, that it examined the possibility of suing on the matter in the PCIJ. The British government's own legal office advised against suing, however, because the PCIJ had already said that Palestine was a state that was successor to Turkey with respect to the territory of Palestine.

http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1045&context=mjil

I understand you're desperate to re-write history. However, you're approaching the "Conspiracy Theory Zone".

You still have nothing, huh?

 

[Mindful]

Not really. Your invented “country of Pal’istan” was never designated as a successor state.

You continually lie about this.

Decisions of international and national tribunals

The U.S. State Department Digest of International Law says that the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne provided for the application of the principles of state succession to the "A" Mandates. The Treaty of Versailles (1920) provisionally recognized the former Ottoman communities as independent nations. It also required Germany to recognize the disposition of the former Ottoman territories and to recognize the new states laid down within their boundaries. The Treaty of Lausanne required the newly created states that acquired the territory to pay annuities on the Ottoman public debt, and to assume responsibility for the administration of concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans. A dispute regarding the status of the territories was settled by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. It was decided that Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties. In its Judgment No. 5, The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, the Permanent Court of International Justice also decided that Palestine was responsible as the successor state for concessions granted by Ottoman authorities. The Courts of Palestine and Great Britain decided that title to the properties shown on the Ottoman Civil list had been ceded to the government of Palestine as an allied successor state.[16]

State of Palestine: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

I'm not surprised that you, as an expert in international law, would cut and paste from wiki.

Wiki was not a part of the Mandate.

The contention of the plaintiff that Palestine, while under the League of Nations mandate, was not a foreign state within the meaning of the statute is wholly without merit.""In support, the court said that the United States in 1932 had taken the position that Palestine was a state: "This the Executive branch of the Government did in 1932," the court explained, "with respect to the operation of the most favored nations provision in treaties of commerce."84 The court found a reference to the 1932 episode in the State Department's digest of international law, where it is mentioned as indicating that the United States considered that Palestine was a state.

The British government was so anxious to exempt Palestine without losing tariff revenue on goods from the United States and several other states, that it examined the possibility of suing on the matter in the PCIJ. The British government's own legal office advised against suing, however, because the PCIJ had already said that Palestine was a state that was successor to Turkey with respect to the territory of Palestine.

http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1045&context=mjil

I understand you're desperate to re-write history. However, you're approaching the "Conspiracy Theory Zone".

You still have nothing, huh?

Ditto.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Decisions of international and national tribunals

The U.S. State Department Digest of International Law says that the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne provided for the application of the principles of state succession to the "A" Mandates. The Treaty of Versailles (1920) provisionally recognized the former Ottoman communities as independent nations. It also required Germany to recognize the disposition of the former Ottoman territories and to recognize the new states laid down within their boundaries. The Treaty of Lausanne required the newly created states that acquired the territory to pay annuities on the Ottoman public debt, and to assume responsibility for the administration of concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans. A dispute regarding the status of the territories was settled by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. It was decided that Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties. In its Judgment No. 5, The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, the Permanent Court of International Justice also decided that Palestine was responsible as the successor state for concessions granted by Ottoman authorities. The Courts of Palestine and Great Britain decided that title to the properties shown on the Ottoman Civil list had been ceded to the government of Palestine as an allied successor state.[16]

State of Palestine: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

I'm not surprised that you, as an expert in international law, would cut and paste from wiki.

Wiki was not a part of the Mandate.

The contention of the plaintiff that Palestine, while under the League of Nations mandate, was not a foreign state within the meaning of the statute is wholly without merit.""In support, the court said that the United States in 1932 had taken the position that Palestine was a state: "This the Executive branch of the Government did in 1932," the court explained, "with respect to the operation of the most favored nations provision in treaties of commerce."84 The court found a reference to the 1932 episode in the State Department's digest of international law, where it is mentioned as indicating that the United States considered that Palestine was a state.

The British government was so anxious to exempt Palestine without losing tariff revenue on goods from the United States and several other states, that it examined the possibility of suing on the matter in the PCIJ. The British government's own legal office advised against suing, however, because the PCIJ had already said that Palestine was a state that was successor to Turkey with respect to the territory of Palestine.

http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1045&context=mjil

I understand you're desperate to re-write history. However, you're approaching the "Conspiracy Theory Zone".

You still have nothing, huh?

Ditto.

I posted proof.

You post Israeli bullshit.

 

[Hollie]

Not really. Your invented “country of Pal’istan” was never designated as a successor state.

You continually lie about this.

Decisions of international and national tribunals

The U.S. State Department Digest of International Law says that the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne provided for the application of the principles of state succession to the "A" Mandates. The Treaty of Versailles (1920) provisionally recognized the former Ottoman communities as independent nations. It also required Germany to recognize the disposition of the former Ottoman territories and to recognize the new states laid down within their boundaries. The Treaty of Lausanne required the newly created states that acquired the territory to pay annuities on the Ottoman public debt, and to assume responsibility for the administration of concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans. A dispute regarding the status of the territories was settled by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. It was decided that Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties. In its Judgment No. 5, The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, the Permanent Court of International Justice also decided that Palestine was responsible as the successor state for concessions granted by Ottoman authorities. The Courts of Palestine and Great Britain decided that title to the properties shown on the Ottoman Civil list had been ceded to the government of Palestine as an allied successor state.[16]

State of Palestine: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

I'm not surprised that you, as an expert in international law, would cut and paste from wiki.

Wiki was not a part of the Mandate.

The contention of the plaintiff that Palestine, while under the League of Nations mandate, was not a foreign state within the meaning of the statute is wholly without merit.""In support, the court said that the United States in 1932 had taken the position that Palestine was a state: "This the Executive branch of the Government did in 1932," the court explained, "with respect to the operation of the most favored nations provision in treaties of commerce."84 The court found a reference to the 1932 episode in the State Department's digest of international law, where it is mentioned as indicating that the United States considered that Palestine was a state.

The British government was so anxious to exempt Palestine without losing tariff revenue on goods from the United States and several other states, that it examined the possibility of suing on the matter in the PCIJ. The British government's own legal office advised against suing, however, because the PCIJ had already said that Palestine was a state that was successor to Turkey with respect to the territory of Palestine.

http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1045&context=mjil

I understand you're desperate to re-write history. However, you're approaching the "Conspiracy Theory Zone".

You still have nothing, huh?

No need to address your conspiracy theories. The historical record (as opposed to your hysterical record), survives in spite of your desire to re-write it.

 

[Mindful]

I'm not surprised that you, as an expert in international law, would cut and paste from wiki.

Wiki was not a part of the Mandate.

The contention of the plaintiff that Palestine, while under the League of Nations mandate, was not a foreign state within the meaning of the statute is wholly without merit.""In support, the court said that the United States in 1932 had taken the position that Palestine was a state: "This the Executive branch of the Government did in 1932," the court explained, "with respect to the operation of the most favored nations provision in treaties of commerce."84 The court found a reference to the 1932 episode in the State Department's digest of international law, where it is mentioned as indicating that the United States considered that Palestine was a state.

The British government was so anxious to exempt Palestine without losing tariff revenue on goods from the United States and several other states, that it examined the possibility of suing on the matter in the PCIJ. The British government's own legal office advised against suing, however, because the PCIJ had already said that Palestine was a state that was successor to Turkey with respect to the territory of Palestine.

http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1045&context=mjil

I understand you're desperate to re-write history. However, you're approaching the "Conspiracy Theory Zone".

You still have nothing, huh?

Ditto.

I posted proof.

You post Israeli bullshit.

You have nothing.

It's a sign you're floundering, when you get aggressive and demand copy and pastings.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Decisions of international and national tribunals

The U.S. State Department Digest of International Law says that the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne provided for the application of the principles of state succession to the "A" Mandates. The Treaty of Versailles (1920) provisionally recognized the former Ottoman communities as independent nations. It also required Germany to recognize the disposition of the former Ottoman territories and to recognize the new states laid down within their boundaries. The Treaty of Lausanne required the newly created states that acquired the territory to pay annuities on the Ottoman public debt, and to assume responsibility for the administration of concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans. A dispute regarding the status of the territories was settled by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. It was decided that Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties. In its Judgment No. 5, The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, the Permanent Court of International Justice also decided that Palestine was responsible as the successor state for concessions granted by Ottoman authorities. The Courts of Palestine and Great Britain decided that title to the properties shown on the Ottoman Civil list had been ceded to the government of Palestine as an allied successor state.[16]

State of Palestine: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

I'm not surprised that you, as an expert in international law, would cut and paste from wiki.

Wiki was not a part of the Mandate.

The contention of the plaintiff that Palestine, while under the League of Nations mandate, was not a foreign state within the meaning of the statute is wholly without merit.""In support, the court said that the United States in 1932 had taken the position that Palestine was a state: "This the Executive branch of the Government did in 1932," the court explained, "with respect to the operation of the most favored nations provision in treaties of commerce."84 The court found a reference to the 1932 episode in the State Department's digest of international law, where it is mentioned as indicating that the United States considered that Palestine was a state.

The British government was so anxious to exempt Palestine without losing tariff revenue on goods from the United States and several other states, that it examined the possibility of suing on the matter in the PCIJ. The British government's own legal office advised against suing, however, because the PCIJ had already said that Palestine was a state that was successor to Turkey with respect to the territory of Palestine.

http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1045&context=mjil

I understand you're desperate to re-write history. However, you're approaching the "Conspiracy Theory Zone".

You still have nothing, huh?

No need to address your conspiracy theories. The historical record (as opposed to your hysterical record), survives in spite of your desire to re-write it.

Where is your so called historical record?

 

[Mindful]

I'm not surprised that you, as an expert in international law, would cut and paste from wiki.

Wiki was not a part of the Mandate.

The contention of the plaintiff that Palestine, while under the League of Nations mandate, was not a foreign state within the meaning of the statute is wholly without merit.""In support, the court said that the United States in 1932 had taken the position that Palestine was a state: "This the Executive branch of the Government did in 1932," the court explained, "with respect to the operation of the most favored nations provision in treaties of commerce."84 The court found a reference to the 1932 episode in the State Department's digest of international law, where it is mentioned as indicating that the United States considered that Palestine was a state.

The British government was so anxious to exempt Palestine without losing tariff revenue on goods from the United States and several other states, that it examined the possibility of suing on the matter in the PCIJ. The British government's own legal office advised against suing, however, because the PCIJ had already said that Palestine was a state that was successor to Turkey with respect to the territory of Palestine.

http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1045&context=mjil

I understand you're desperate to re-write history. However, you're approaching the "Conspiracy Theory Zone".

You still have nothing, huh?

No need to address your conspiracy theories. The historical record (as opposed to your hysterical record), survives in spite of your desire to re-write it.

Where is your so called historical record?

You're trying too hard.

 

[Hollie]

I'm not surprised that you, as an expert in international law, would cut and paste from wiki.

Wiki was not a part of the Mandate.

The contention of the plaintiff that Palestine, while under the League of Nations mandate, was not a foreign state within the meaning of the statute is wholly without merit.""In support, the court said that the United States in 1932 had taken the position that Palestine was a state: "This the Executive branch of the Government did in 1932," the court explained, "with respect to the operation of the most favored nations provision in treaties of commerce."84 The court found a reference to the 1932 episode in the State Department's digest of international law, where it is mentioned as indicating that the United States considered that Palestine was a state.

The British government was so anxious to exempt Palestine without losing tariff revenue on goods from the United States and several other states, that it examined the possibility of suing on the matter in the PCIJ. The British government's own legal office advised against suing, however, because the PCIJ had already said that Palestine was a state that was successor to Turkey with respect to the territory of Palestine.

http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1045&context=mjil

I understand you're desperate to re-write history. However, you're approaching the "Conspiracy Theory Zone".

You still have nothing, huh?

No need to address your conspiracy theories. The historical record (as opposed to your hysterical record), survives in spite of your desire to re-write it.

Where is your so called historical record?

You will find references in this very thread. I would exclude your cutting and pasting from wiki, however.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The contention of the plaintiff that Palestine, while under the League of Nations mandate, was not a foreign state within the meaning of the statute is wholly without merit.""In support, the court said that the United States in 1932 had taken the position that Palestine was a state: "This the Executive branch of the Government did in 1932," the court explained, "with respect to the operation of the most favored nations provision in treaties of commerce."84 The court found a reference to the 1932 episode in the State Department's digest of international law, where it is mentioned as indicating that the United States considered that Palestine was a state.

The British government was so anxious to exempt Palestine without losing tariff revenue on goods from the United States and several other states, that it examined the possibility of suing on the matter in the PCIJ. The British government's own legal office advised against suing, however, because the PCIJ had already said that Palestine was a state that was successor to Turkey with respect to the territory of Palestine.

http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1045&context=mjil

I understand you're desperate to re-write history. However, you're approaching the "Conspiracy Theory Zone".

You still have nothing, huh?

No need to address your conspiracy theories. The historical record (as opposed to your hysterical record), survives in spite of your desire to re-write it.

Where is your so called historical record?

You will find references in this very thread. I would exclude your cutting and pasting from wiki, however.

Just keep dancing. You have nothing.

 

[Mindful]

I understand you're desperate to re-write history. However, you're approaching the "Conspiracy Theory Zone".

You still have nothing, huh?

No need to address your conspiracy theories. The historical record (as opposed to your hysterical record), survives in spite of your desire to re-write it.

Where is your so called historical record?

You will find references in this very thread. I would exclude your cutting and pasting from wiki, however.

Just keep dancing. You have nothing.

Ditto.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Here is mine. Where is yours?

The Balfour Declaration

The Balfour Declaration

 

[Hollie]

I understand you're desperate to re-write history. However, you're approaching the "Conspiracy Theory Zone".

You still have nothing, huh?

No need to address your conspiracy theories. The historical record (as opposed to your hysterical record), survives in spite of your desire to re-write it.

Where is your so called historical record?

You will find references in this very thread. I would exclude your cutting and pasting from wiki, however.

Just keep dancing. You have nothing.

Your usual retreat to cartoons.

Here's a hint: you won't find historical data in your cut and paste cartoons.

 

[Hollie]

Here is mine. Where is yours?

The Balfour Declaration

The Balfour Declaration

You do understand that there were events that preceeded the Balfour Declaration and events subsequent, right?

A great many of those events are elucidated in this thread and others.

Your cut and paste link has been cut and pasted many times before. Is yours different; taken from a conspiracy theory aligned site?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Here is mine. Where is yours?

The Balfour Declaration

The Balfour Declaration

You do understand that there were events that preceeded the Balfour Declaration and events subsequent, right?

A great many of those events are elucidated in this thread and others.

Your cut and paste link has been cut and pasted many times before. Is yours different; taken from a conspiracy theory aligned site?

Too much blabber.

To little proof. (none)

 

[Hollie]

Here is mine. Where is yours?

The Balfour Declaration

The Balfour Declaration

You do understand that there were events that preceeded the Balfour Declaration and events subsequent, right?

A great many of those events are elucidated in this thread and others.

Your cut and paste link has been cut and pasted many times before. Is yours different; taken from a conspiracy theory aligned site?

Too much blabber.

To little proof. (none)

Proof of what? You can find the Balfour Declaration online.

What are you attempting to defend with cut and paste cartoons?

 

[Mindful]

Here is mine. Where is yours?

The Balfour Declaration

The Balfour Declaration

You do understand that there were events that preceeded the Balfour Declaration and events subsequent, right?

A great many of those events are elucidated in this thread and others.

Your cut and paste link has been cut and pasted many times before. Is yours different; taken from a conspiracy theory aligned site?

Too much blabber.

To little proof. (none)

Why does it matter so much to you?