The Humanitarian Gaza Flotillas Saga

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The League of Nations, entrusted the administration of the Territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them the Allied Powers in 1922.

It was not sovereign to the Arabs of Palestine, nor was it self governing.

The point is that the Treaty of Lausanne has nothing to do with Palestine or 'Palestinians'

It freed Palestine from Turkish rule and laid out their nationality.

Does it say that in those words, or is that your interpretation of it ? What it did is set the scene for the Jewish national home in Palestine, and allowed the arab muslims from Saudi to rule over arab muslim nomads

No it didn't. It didn't say anything about that.

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.

Treaty of Lausanne - World War I Document Archive​

will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.

So which state was Palestine transferred to again, remembering that there was no state of Palestine at that time ?

You lose again because you don't read and digest what you post.............................

Who said there wasn't?

Link?

(COMMENT)

Within the land outline by the Treaty of Lausanne, in ARTICLE 3, the territory from the Mediterranean to the frontier of Persia, the frontier of Turkey is laid down as Syria: The frontier described in Article 8 of the Franco-Turkish Agreement of the 20th October, 1921.

PART I. Palestine Order in Council

PRELIMINARY.
Title.1. This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."

The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.
​

I am interested in where P F Tinmore says specifically that "Palestine" is (by name or by territorial outline) identified as a self-governing, sovereign territory --- by the Treaty, or other such document.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The League of Nations, entrusted the administration of the Territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them the Allied Powers in 1922.

It was not sovereign to the Arabs of Palestine, nor was it self governing.

It freed Palestine from Turkish rule and laid out their nationality.

Does it say that in those words, or is that your interpretation of it ? What it did is set the scene for the Jewish national home in Palestine, and allowed the arab muslims from Saudi to rule over arab muslim nomads

No it didn't. It didn't say anything about that.

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.

Treaty of Lausanne - World War I Document Archive​

will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.

So which state was Palestine transferred to again, remembering that there was no state of Palestine at that time ?

You lose again because you don't read and digest what you post.............................

Who said there wasn't?

Link?

(COMMENT)

Within the land outline by the Treaty of Lausanne, in ARTICLE 3, the territory from the Mediterranean to the frontier of Persia, the frontier of Turkey is laid down as Syria: The frontier described in Article 8 of the Franco-Turkish Agreement of the 20th October, 1921.

PART I. Palestine Order in Council

PRELIMINARY.
Title.1. This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."

The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.
​

I am interested in where P F Tinmore says specifically that "Palestine" is (by name or by territorial outline) identified as a self-governing, sovereign territory --- by the Treaty, or other such document.

Most Respectfully,
R

Why are you trying to smokescreen the issues.

You know that "self governing" is not a relevant issue.

 

[Billo_Really]

In one short sentence from the link to the UN report I supplied previously:
81. The Panel therefore concludes that Israel’s naval blockade was legal.


http://www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/middle_east/Gaza_Flotilla_Panel_Report.pdf

Denial is for angry short boys.

I'm not the one in denial. You're acting like a little 10 year old, with her fingers in her ear, repeating the same line over and over and over...

It's interesting that I can explain why your precious Palmer Report cannot be used to justify the legality of the blockade, but you're unable to explain why it can?

Hollie's horseshit:
81. The Panel therefore concludes that Israel’s naval blockade was legal.​

The "Panel", was not commissioned to conclude whether the blockade was legal. That was not its mission. And that "conclusion", is nothing more than an Op-Ed.

 

[Billo_Really]

Yet to see such a big mouth combined with such low IQ.

UN investigation backs Israel s naval blockade of Gaza World news The Guardian

I wouldn't talk about the IQ of others, when you keep pushing a fatally flawed document, that cannot be used as the legal authority on the blockade.

 

[Billo_Really]

It seems like he enjoys making himself look like an idiot.

You gotta love a thread like this, because it shows just how big of assholes, Zionists are. It also shows how stupid and afraid they are.

Stupid, because they think others will buy into their constant name-calling, when it's obvious for all to see, they're afraid to specifically address arguments against them.

I blew your dumbass Palmer Report out of the sky and stated the reasons why; all your rebuttal consisted of, was a bunch of lame ass name-calling and repeating the same line you said before.

Which makes me wonder, are there any Zionists past the age of 10?

 

[P F Tinmore]

In one short sentence from the link to the UN report I supplied previously:
81. The Panel therefore concludes that Israel’s naval blockade was legal.


http://www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/middle_east/Gaza_Flotilla_Panel_Report.pdf

Denial is for angry short boys.

I'm not the one in denial. You're acting like a little 10 year old, with her fingers in her ear, repeating the same line over and over and over...

It's interesting that I can explain why your precious Palmer Report cannot be used to justify the legality of the blockade, but you're unable to explain why it can?

Hollie's horseshit:
81. The Panel therefore concludes that Israel’s naval blockade was legal.​

The "Panel", was not commissioned to conclude whether the blockade was legal. That was not its mission. And that "conclusion", is nothing more than an Op-Ed.

The Palmer Report was a political opinion not a legal finding.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, toastman, et al,

There is no smokescreen here.

The Treaty of Lausanne does not mention Palestine at all.

That is correct.
What is your point?

The point is that the Treaty of Lausanne has nothing to do with Palestine or 'Palestinians'

It freed Palestine from Turkish rule and laid out their nationality.[/QUOTE]

Why are you trying to smokescreen the issues.
You know that "self governing" is not a relevant issue.

(COMMENT)

You implied that the Treaty of Lausanne (1924) freed Palestine from Turkish rule and laid out their nationality.

The Territory to which the Mandate applied (1922) was first placed under the authority of the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) over the Levantine and Mesopotamian provinces freeing them from the former Ottoman Empire between 1918–20. The OETA was established following the Armistice of Mudros and the campaigns over Sinai and Palestine.

The Treaty made no specifics. The Treaty, relative to nationality issues, spoke in generalities relative to all the territory remanded to the Allied Powers.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, toastman, et al,

There is no smokescreen here.

The Treaty of Lausanne does not mention Palestine at all.

That is correct.
What is your point?

The point is that the Treaty of Lausanne has nothing to do with Palestine or 'Palestinians'

It freed Palestine from Turkish rule and laid out their nationality.

Why are you trying to smokescreen the issues.
You know that "self governing" is not a relevant issue.

(COMMENT)

You implied that the Treaty of Lausanne (1924) freed Palestine from Turkish rule and laid out their nationality.

The Territory to which the Mandate applied (1922) was first placed under the authority of the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) over the Levantine and Mesopotamian provinces freeing them from the former Ottoman Empire between 1918–20. The OETA was established following the Armistice of Mudros and the campaigns over Sinai and Palestine.

The Treaty made no specifics. The Treaty, relative to nationality issues, spoke in generalities relative to all the territory remanded to the Allied Powers.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Treaty made no specifics. The Treaty, relative to nationality issues, spoke in generalities relative to all the territory remanded to the Allied Powers.​

Including Palestine. Nothing refutes my post.

 

[Roudy]

It seems like he enjoys making himself look like an idiot.

You gotta love a thread like this, because it shows just how big of assholes, Zionists are. It also shows how stupid and afraid they are.

Stupid, because they think others will buy into their constant name-calling, when it's obvious for all to see, they're afraid to specifically address arguments against them.

I blew your dumbass Palmer Report out of the sky and stated the reasons why; all your rebuttal consisted of, was a bunch of lame ass name-calling and repeating the same line you said before.

Which makes me wonder, are there any Zionists past the age of 10?

You did no such thing. You blew more smoke out of Uranus and proved once again that you are a big mouthed low IQ ahole who enjoys making a fool out of himself.

UN found the blockade completely legal, case closed.

 

[Roudy]

In one short sentence from the link to the UN report I supplied previously:
81. The Panel therefore concludes that Israel’s naval blockade was legal.


http://www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/middle_east/Gaza_Flotilla_Panel_Report.pdf

Denial is for angry short boys.

I'm not the one in denial. You're acting like a little 10 year old, with her fingers in her ear, repeating the same line over and over and over...

It's interesting that I can explain why your precious Palmer Report cannot be used to justify the legality of the blockade, but you're unable to explain why it can?

Hollie's horseshit:
81. The Panel therefore concludes that Israel’s naval blockade was legal.​

The "Panel", was not commissioned to conclude whether the blockade was legal. That was not its mission. And that "conclusion", is nothing more than an Op-Ed.

The Palmer Report was a political opinion not a legal finding.

Yeah? Then how the **** did the UN find the blockade to be LEGAL.

Ha ha ha. What a bunch of mentally ill morons.

 

[Roudy]

Yet to see such a big mouth combined with such low IQ.

UN investigation backs Israel s naval blockade of Gaza World news The Guardian

I wouldn't talk about the IQ of others, when you keep pushing a fatally flawed document, that cannot be used as the legal authority on the blockade.

Yeah? Then what is the legal authority? Big mouth low IQ assholes like you? Ha ha ha.

 

[Roudy]

P F Tinmore, toastman, et al,

There is no smokescreen here.

The Treaty of Lausanne does not mention Palestine at all.

That is correct.
What is your point?

The point is that the Treaty of Lausanne has nothing to do with Palestine or 'Palestinians'

It freed Palestine from Turkish rule and laid out their nationality.

Why are you trying to smokescreen the issues.
You know that "self governing" is not a relevant issue.

(COMMENT)

You implied that the Treaty of Lausanne (1924) freed Palestine from Turkish rule and laid out their nationality.

The Territory to which the Mandate applied (1922) was first placed under the authority of the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) over the Levantine and Mesopotamian provinces freeing them from the former Ottoman Empire between 1918–20. The OETA was established following the Armistice of Mudros and the campaigns over Sinai and Palestine.

The Treaty made no specifics. The Treaty, relative to nationality issues, spoke in generalities relative to all the territory remanded to the Allied Powers.

Most Respectfully,
R[/QUOTE]

Tinmore doesn't like to deal with any fact that refutes his asinine claims and will deny and divert until eternity. You can take a donkey like him to water hundreds of times, but you can't make him drink the water.

 

[Hollie]

In one short sentence from the link to the UN report I supplied previously:
81. The Panel therefore concludes that Israel’s naval blockade was legal.


http://www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/middle_east/Gaza_Flotilla_Panel_Report.pdf

Denial is for angry short boys.

I'm not the one in denial. You're acting like a little 10 year old, with her fingers in her ear, repeating the same line over and over and over...

It's interesting that I can explain why your precious Palmer Report cannot be used to justify the legality of the blockade, but you're unable to explain why it can?

Hollie's horseshit:
81. The Panel therefore concludes that Israel’s naval blockade was legal.​

The "Panel", was not commissioned to conclude whether the blockade was legal. That was not its mission. And that "conclusion", is nothing more than an Op-Ed.

You, as always, came up short in your weak attempt to save you shrunken credibility.

The panel concluded: "..... that Israel’s naval blockade was legal."

You're incensed by the panel's conclusion because Israel's actions were consistent with established constructs of law and, more than that, because it conflicts with your stunted self esteem and your ignorance regarding the matter.

Sorry there, shortstop. Now go wipe that unseemly drool left from your saliva-slinging tirade.

 

[Hollie]

In one short sentence from the link to the UN report I supplied previously:
81. The Panel therefore concludes that Israel’s naval blockade was legal.


http://www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/middle_east/Gaza_Flotilla_Panel_Report.pdf

Denial is for angry short boys.

I'm not the one in denial. You're acting like a little 10 year old, with her fingers in her ear, repeating the same line over and over and over...

It's interesting that I can explain why your precious Palmer Report cannot be used to justify the legality of the blockade, but you're unable to explain why it can?

Hollie's horseshit:
81. The Panel therefore concludes that Israel’s naval blockade was legal.​

The "Panel", was not commissioned to conclude whether the blockade was legal. That was not its mission. And that "conclusion", is nothing more than an Op-Ed.

The Palmer Report was a political opinion not a legal finding.

Your hurt feelings are noted and ignored.

The findings and conclusion are consistent with established law.

Your terrorist heroes lose again.

How's that workin' out for ya'?

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, toastman, et al,

There is no smokescreen here.

The Treaty of Lausanne does not mention Palestine at all.

That is correct.
What is your point?

The point is that the Treaty of Lausanne has nothing to do with Palestine or 'Palestinians'

It freed Palestine from Turkish rule and laid out their nationality.

Why are you trying to smokescreen the issues.
You know that "self governing" is not a relevant issue.

(COMMENT)

You implied that the Treaty of Lausanne (1924) freed Palestine from Turkish rule and laid out their nationality.

The Territory to which the Mandate applied (1922) was first placed under the authority of the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) over the Levantine and Mesopotamian provinces freeing them from the former Ottoman Empire between 1918–20. The OETA was established following the Armistice of Mudros and the campaigns over Sinai and Palestine.

The Treaty made no specifics. The Treaty, relative to nationality issues, spoke in generalities relative to all the territory remanded to the Allied Powers.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Treaty made no specifics. The Treaty, relative to nationality issues, spoke in generalities relative to all the territory remanded to the Allied Powers.​

Including Palestine. Nothing refutes my post.

Everything refutes your post. Rocco laid in detail why your rambling was a fraud.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you've not read my post.

Including Palestine. Nothing refutes my post.

(COMMENT)

The Treaty did not free any holdings placed under OETA.

The Treaty did not attach any nationality.

The applicable documents, prior to the Treaty, were listed in Post #956.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you've not read my post.

Including Palestine. Nothing refutes my post.

(COMMENT)

The Treaty did not free any holdings placed under OETA.

The Treaty did not attach any nationality.

The applicable documents, prior to the Treaty, were listed in Post #956.

Most Respectfully,
R

So, what part of all that refuted my post?

 

[Roudy]

^^^^^
So, all of it.

 

[Billo_Really]

You, as always, came up short in your weak attempt to save you shrunken credibility.

The panel concluded: "..... that Israel’s naval blockade was legal."

You're incensed by the panel's conclusion because Israel's actions were consistent with established constructs of law and, more than that, because it conflicts with your stunted self esteem and your ignorance regarding the matter.

Sorry there, shortstop. Now go wipe that unseemly drool left from your saliva-slinging tirade.

Your "Panels" conclusion, was like an auto mechanic explaining the intricacies of open heart surgery and concluding its not a life threatening procedure. And you're telling everyone, that if you were the one who needed the procedure, you'd go to an auto mechanic for advice.

Not only that, you'd also dismiss the advice of a heart surgeon and telling everyone the auto mechanic was the authority in this case.

There were no experts in international maritime law, on your "Panel". There were no legal experts in international law, on your "Panel". There was a bunch of partisan hacks, such as yourself, using the UN for a hasbara report.

Your "Panel", has no credibility within the international community.

 

[Billo_Really]

Yeah? Then what is the legal authority? Big mouth low IQ assholes like you? Ha ha ha.

The UNHRC-FFM report, that was commissioned to determine the legality of the blockade.

"The FFM was equipped with a large support team so that its own very senior lawyers who are experienced in international criminal law were supplemented by experts in the law of the sea and international humanitarian law. In addition it met with a number of non-governmental organizations, had assistance from law firms in three countries, and was thoroughly briefed on the situation in Gaza by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.

The UN [Palmer] Panel did not have the services of anyone with expertise in international criminal or maritime law and did not conduct interviews of its own. That it should now criticise its more senior and better equipped counterparts in the UNHRC is an indication of the unreal world in which it has functioned."​