The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate

[MartyNYC]

Palestine never existed. It was a fictional European name for Jews’ homeland. Arabs even rejected its existence...

 

[Sixties Fan]

Some Black Leaders Supported Zionism Before Herzl Did (Daled Amos)

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.

elderofziyon.blogspot.com

 

[Sixties Fan]

He was anxious to explain to them how he is not antisemitic at all, as reported in The Palestine Bulletin of August 5, 1930.

“The Moslems cannot admit that the Jews are the Chosen People. The chosen man must be the best man, as for example President Hoover in America, so the Chosen People must be the best people. This does not coincide with reality,” he told his guests.

But, he insisted, Muslims in Palestine did not dislike Jews because they are Jews, but only opposed Zionists. Apparently, Jews could never be the best people, but they are OK.

Immediately afterwards, again making sure that he was sayin what he assumed his audience wanted to hear, he described the Jews in Palestine as “a foreign people which persecute Christ and tried to crucify him.”

(full article online)

The Mufti of Jerusalem said he only hated Zionists, not Christ-killing Jews

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.

elderofziyon.blogspot.com

 

[Sixties Fan]

From Palestine to jail in Mauritius: When Britain deported 1,580 Shoah refugees

They fled the Nazis to Mandate Palestine in 1940, only to be deported and, over Churchill's objections, locked up for 5 years; August 12 marks 75 years since their release

www.timesofisrael.com

 

[Sixties Fan]

The Peasants' Revolt was an 1834 rebellion against Egyptian conscription and taxation of Arabs in Palestine. Egyptian general Ibrahim Pasha attempted to take over all of Palestine, but at one point he went to Jaffa and the Arabs of Jerusalem started their revolt.

An account of what happened was published in a Sydney, Australia newspaper:

​

As I made continual excursions among the Arabs, and they conversed with me without reserve, I discovered that they were very discontented with the Pacha's government, particularly with his taking their young men for soldiers. They informed me that a widely extended conspiracy was on the point of breaking forth into rebellion, and that I should do well to quit Palestine. I accordingly made preparations for my -departure ; but, in spite of all my diligence, I was too late. No sooner did the Pacha depart for Jaffa than the revolution commenced. …The Arabs from Samaria and Hebron marched on Jerusalem. The Pacha had left only 600 men in Jerusalem, and the assailants were more than 40;000. 'As, however, the walls were furnished with a few cannon, and the Arabs were armed with nothing but lances and muskets, we could have held out forever, had not the Arabs discovered a subterranean passage.

They entered at midnight, and: the soldiers, after a gallant defence, .were obliged to retire to the castle. All the Christians fled to the different convents and thus, saved their lives: For five or six days the city was given up to plunder, and never did I witness such a heart rending spectacle.
The Jews, who had no place of safety to which they could retire, suffered very much; their houses were so,pillaged that they had not a bed to lie on, many were murdered, their wives and daughters violated &c.; in fine, barbarities were committed too shocking to relate.

Ibrahim Pasha returned to Jerusalem with 5000 soldiers and conquered the city again. He then went on to Hebron in August, where he attacked the Arab rebels hiding there – and the Jews.

From an 1851 account of "The Revolt and Earthquake of Jerusalem in 1834."

(full article online)

During the 1834 Peasants’ Revolt in Palestine, both sides attacked Jews

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.

elderofziyon.blogspot.com

 

[P F Tinmore]

I believe you are (again) trying to apply Section II → Articles 30 thru 36 → Treaty of Lausanne as an implication of Statehood for a place called Palestine. The concept of preventing "stateless persons" → in that era → were being handled by Treaty.

So to prevent stateless persons they make Palestinians citizens of a place that is not a state.

The most difficult part of replying to your posts is that you make no sense.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So to prevent stateless persons they make Palestinians citizens of a place that is not a state.

The Palestinians did that to themselves.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I believe you are (again) trying to apply Section II → Articles 30 thru 36 → Treaty of Lausanne as an implication of Statehood for a place called Palestine. The concept of preventing "stateless persons" → in that era → were being handled by Treaty.

So to prevent stateless persons they make Palestinians citizens of a place that is not a state.

The most difficult part of replying to your posts is that you make no sense.

I agree, the self-inflicted errors of the "Palestinians" are hilarious!!!

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I believe you are (again) trying to apply Section II → Articles 30 thru 36 → Treaty of Lausanne as an implication of Statehood for a place called Palestine. The concept of preventing "stateless persons" → in that era → were being handled by Treaty.

So to prevent stateless persons they make Palestinians citizens of a place that is not a state.

The most difficult part of replying to your posts is that you make no sense.

(COMMENT)

And yet, the concept of a "Legal Entity" (under British Administration) was recognized by all the Allied Powers and the Permanent Court of Justice.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I believe you are (again) trying to apply Section II → Articles 30 thru 36 → Treaty of Lausanne as an implication of Statehood for a place called Palestine. The concept of preventing "stateless persons" → in that era → were being handled by Treaty.

So to prevent stateless persons they make Palestinians citizens of a place that is not a state.

The most difficult part of replying to your posts is that you make no sense.

(COMMENT)

And yet, the concept of a "Legal Entity" (under British Administration) was recognized by all the Allied Powers and the Permanent Court of Justice.


Most Respectfully,
R

Nice duck.

So to prevent stateless persons they make Palestinians citizens of a place that is not a state.

BTW, WTF is a legal entity?

Link?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Yeaah, I think we talked about this before (not sure).

Part III. Proceedings in which State immunity cannot be invoked
Article 10. Commercial transactions

1. If a State engages in a commercial transaction with a foreign natural or juridical person and,​

by virtue of the applicable rules of private international law, differences relating to the commercial​

transaction fall within the jurisdiction of a court of another State, the State cannot invoke immunity​

from that jurisdiction in a proceeding arising out of that commercial transaction.​

​

2. Paragraph 1 does not apply:​

​

(a) in the case of a commercial transaction between States; or​

(b) if the parties to the commercial transaction have expressly agreed otherwise.​

​

3. Where a State enterprise or other entity established by a State which has an independent​

legal personality and is capable of:​

​

(a) suing or being sued; and​

(b) acquiring, owning or possessing and disposing of property, including property which​

that State has authorized it to operate or manage,​

is involved in a proceeding which relates to a commercial transaction in which that entity is engaged,​

the immunity from jurisdiction enjoyed by that State shall not be affected.​

Annex to the Convention
Understandings with respect to certain provisions of the Convention

The present annex is for the purpose of setting out understandings relating to the provisions
concerned.

With respect to article 10

The term “immunity” in article 10 is to be understood in the context of the present Convention​

as a whole.​

​

Article 10, paragraph 3, does not prejudge the question of “piercing the corporate veil”, questions​

relating to a situation where a State entity has deliberately misrepresented its financial position​

or subsequently reduced its assets to avoid satisfying a claim, or other related issues.​

With respect to article 19

The expression “entity” in subparagraph (c) means the State as an independent legal personality,​

a constituent unit of a federal State, a subdivision of a State, an agency or instrumentality of a​

State or other entity, which enjoys independent legal personality.​

SOURCE: III. Subjects of international law Pg 126 and pg132
​

​

Chapter II. Attribution of conduct to a State
Article 4. Conduct of organs of a State

1. The conduct of any State organ shall be considered an act of that State under international
law, whether the organ exercises legislative, executive, judicial or any other functions, whatever position
it holds in the organization of the State, and whatever its character as an organ of the central
Government or of a territorial unit of the State.

2. An organ includes any person or entity which has that status in accordance with the internal
law of the State.

SOURCE: 20. Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts pg 237
​

So to prevent stateless persons they make Palestinians citizens of a place that is not a state.

BTW, WTF is a legal entity?

Link?

(COMMENT)

"Legal Entities" have been around for a very long time. In the Case of Palestine, the Allied Powers (utilizing the Authority agreed upon through the Surrender) decided to grant the Mandate Authorities all the powers necessary for the British to fully administer the territory under the Mandate.

◈ full powers of legislation and of administration...​

◈ responsible for enacting a nationality law...​

◈ facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship...​

◈ seeing that the judicial system was established in Palestine...​

◈ full power to provide for public ownership or control of any of the natural resources of the country, the public works, services, and utilities...​

While spoken of in the Mandate as separate authorities and responsibilities, the British "High Commissioner has governed Palestine with the aid of Councils consisting exclusively of British officials;" a consequence out of the lack of cooperation from the Arab Higher Committee. There was no question that the entire international community understood and remained silent on (tacit approval) the total control over the territory subject to the Mandate for Palestine.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Hollie]

I believe you are (again) trying to apply Section II → Articles 30 thru 36 → Treaty of Lausanne as an implication of Statehood for a place called Palestine. The concept of preventing "stateless persons" → in that era → were being handled by Treaty.

So to prevent stateless persons they make Palestinians citizens of a place that is not a state.

The most difficult part of replying to your posts is that you make no sense.

You have this strange notion you repeat often that the Treaty of Lausanne created your imagined “country of Pal’istan”.

Nonsense is not made true no matter how many times you repeat the nonsense.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Yeaah, I think we talked about this before (not sure).

​

Part III. Proceedings in which State immunity cannot be invoked​

Article 10. Commercial transactions​

​

1. If a State engages in a commercial transaction with a foreign natural or juridical person and,​

by virtue of the applicable rules of private international law, differences relating to the commercial​

transaction fall within the jurisdiction of a court of another State, the State cannot invoke immunity​

from that jurisdiction in a proceeding arising out of that commercial transaction.​

​

2. Paragraph 1 does not apply:​

​

(a) in the case of a commercial transaction between States; or​

(b) if the parties to the commercial transaction have expressly agreed otherwise.​

​

3. Where a State enterprise or other entity established by a State which has an independent​

legal personality and is capable of:​

​

(a) suing or being sued; and​

(b) acquiring, owning or possessing and disposing of property, including property which​

that State has authorized it to operate or manage,​

is involved in a proceeding which relates to a commercial transaction in which that entity is engaged,​

the immunity from jurisdiction enjoyed by that State shall not be affected.​

​

Annex to the Convention​

Understandings with respect to certain provisions of the Convention​

​

The present annex is for the purpose of setting out understandings relating to the provisions​

concerned.​

​

With respect to article 10​

​

The term “immunity” in article 10 is to be understood in the context of the present Convention​

as a whole.​

​

Article 10, paragraph 3, does not prejudge the question of “piercing the corporate veil”, questions​

relating to a situation where a State entity has deliberately misrepresented its financial position​

or subsequently reduced its assets to avoid satisfying a claim, or other related issues.​

​

With respect to article 19​

​

The expression “entity” in subparagraph (c) means the State as an independent legal personality,​

a constituent unit of a federal State, a subdivision of a State, an agency or instrumentality of a​

State or other entity, which enjoys independent legal personality.​

​

​

SOURCE: III. Subjects of international law Pg 126 and pg132​

​

​

​

Chapter II. Attribution of conduct to a State​

Article 4. Conduct of organs of a State​

​

1. The conduct of any State organ shall be considered an act of that State under international​

law, whether the organ exercises legislative, executive, judicial or any other functions, whatever position​

it holds in the organization of the State, and whatever its character as an organ of the central​

Government or of a territorial unit of the State.​

​

2. An organ includes any person or entity which has that status in accordance with the internal​

law of the State.​

​

​

SOURCE: 20. Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts pg 237​

​

So to prevent stateless persons they make Palestinians citizens of a place that is not a state.

BTW, WTF is a legal entity?

Link?

(COMMENT)

"Legal Entities" have been around for a very long time. In the Case of Palestine, the Allied Powers (utilizing the Authority agreed upon through the Surrender) decided to grant the Mandate Authorities all the powers necessary for the British to fully administer the territory under the Mandate.

◈ full powers of legislation and of administration...​

◈ responsible for enacting a nationality law...​

◈ facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship...​

◈ seeing that the judicial system was established in Palestine...​

◈ full power to provide for public ownership or control of any of the natural resources of the country, the public works, services, and utilities...​

While spoken of in the Mandate as separate authorities and responsibilities, the British "High Commissioner has governed Palestine with the aid of Councils consisting exclusively of British officials;" a consequence out of the lack of cooperation from the Arab Higher Committee. There was no question that the entire international community understood and remained silent on (tacit approval) the total control over the territory subject to the Mandate for Palestine.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, so how does all that make Palestine not a state?

And, what about my first statement?

 

[Hollie]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Yeaah, I think we talked about this before (not sure).

​

Part III. Proceedings in which State immunity cannot be invoked​

Article 10. Commercial transactions​

​

1. If a State engages in a commercial transaction with a foreign natural or juridical person and,​

by virtue of the applicable rules of private international law, differences relating to the commercial​

transaction fall within the jurisdiction of a court of another State, the State cannot invoke immunity​

from that jurisdiction in a proceeding arising out of that commercial transaction.​

​

2. Paragraph 1 does not apply:​

​

(a) in the case of a commercial transaction between States; or​

(b) if the parties to the commercial transaction have expressly agreed otherwise.​

​

3. Where a State enterprise or other entity established by a State which has an independent​

legal personality and is capable of:​

​

(a) suing or being sued; and​

(b) acquiring, owning or possessing and disposing of property, including property which​

that State has authorized it to operate or manage,​

is involved in a proceeding which relates to a commercial transaction in which that entity is engaged,​

the immunity from jurisdiction enjoyed by that State shall not be affected.​

​

Annex to the Convention​

Understandings with respect to certain provisions of the Convention​

​

The present annex is for the purpose of setting out understandings relating to the provisions​

concerned.​

​

With respect to article 10​

​

The term “immunity” in article 10 is to be understood in the context of the present Convention​

as a whole.​

​

Article 10, paragraph 3, does not prejudge the question of “piercing the corporate veil”, questions​

relating to a situation where a State entity has deliberately misrepresented its financial position​

or subsequently reduced its assets to avoid satisfying a claim, or other related issues.​

​

With respect to article 19​

​

The expression “entity” in subparagraph (c) means the State as an independent legal personality,​

a constituent unit of a federal State, a subdivision of a State, an agency or instrumentality of a​

State or other entity, which enjoys independent legal personality.​

​

​

SOURCE: III. Subjects of international law Pg 126 and pg132​

​

​

​

Chapter II. Attribution of conduct to a State​

Article 4. Conduct of organs of a State​

​

1. The conduct of any State organ shall be considered an act of that State under international​

law, whether the organ exercises legislative, executive, judicial or any other functions, whatever position​

it holds in the organization of the State, and whatever its character as an organ of the central​

Government or of a territorial unit of the State.​

​

2. An organ includes any person or entity which has that status in accordance with the internal​

law of the State.​

​

​

SOURCE: 20. Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts pg 237​

​

So to prevent stateless persons they make Palestinians citizens of a place that is not a state.

BTW, WTF is a legal entity?

Link?

(COMMENT)

"Legal Entities" have been around for a very long time. In the Case of Palestine, the Allied Powers (utilizing the Authority agreed upon through the Surrender) decided to grant the Mandate Authorities all the powers necessary for the British to fully administer the territory under the Mandate.

◈ full powers of legislation and of administration...​

◈ responsible for enacting a nationality law...​

◈ facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship...​

◈ seeing that the judicial system was established in Palestine...​

◈ full power to provide for public ownership or control of any of the natural resources of the country, the public works, services, and utilities...​

While spoken of in the Mandate as separate authorities and responsibilities, the British "High Commissioner has governed Palestine with the aid of Councils consisting exclusively of British officials;" a consequence out of the lack of cooperation from the Arab Higher Committee. There was no question that the entire international community understood and remained silent on (tacit approval) the total control over the territory subject to the Mandate for Palestine.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, so how does all that make Palestine not a state?

And, what about my first statement?

Why is it that you can’t make the positive claim that “Palestine” is a State?

So how does all that make Palestine not a state? Well, because, there is no argument that makes “Palestine” a state.

For most, that’s a pretty simple exercise.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Yeaah, I think we talked about this before (not sure).

​

Part III. Proceedings in which State immunity cannot be invoked​

Article 10. Commercial transactions​

​

1. If a State engages in a commercial transaction with a foreign natural or juridical person and,​

by virtue of the applicable rules of private international law, differences relating to the commercial​

transaction fall within the jurisdiction of a court of another State, the State cannot invoke immunity​

from that jurisdiction in a proceeding arising out of that commercial transaction.​

​

2. Paragraph 1 does not apply:​

​

(a) in the case of a commercial transaction between States; or​

(b) if the parties to the commercial transaction have expressly agreed otherwise.​

​

3. Where a State enterprise or other entity established by a State which has an independent​

legal personality and is capable of:​

​

(a) suing or being sued; and​

(b) acquiring, owning or possessing and disposing of property, including property which​

that State has authorized it to operate or manage,​

is involved in a proceeding which relates to a commercial transaction in which that entity is engaged,​

the immunity from jurisdiction enjoyed by that State shall not be affected.​

​

Annex to the Convention​

Understandings with respect to certain provisions of the Convention​

​

The present annex is for the purpose of setting out understandings relating to the provisions​

concerned.​

​

With respect to article 10​

​

The term “immunity” in article 10 is to be understood in the context of the present Convention​

as a whole.​

​

Article 10, paragraph 3, does not prejudge the question of “piercing the corporate veil”, questions​

relating to a situation where a State entity has deliberately misrepresented its financial position​

or subsequently reduced its assets to avoid satisfying a claim, or other related issues.​

​

With respect to article 19​

​

The expression “entity” in subparagraph (c) means the State as an independent legal personality,​

a constituent unit of a federal State, a subdivision of a State, an agency or instrumentality of a​

State or other entity, which enjoys independent legal personality.​

​

​

SOURCE: III. Subjects of international law Pg 126 and pg132​

​

​

​

Chapter II. Attribution of conduct to a State​

Article 4. Conduct of organs of a State​

​

1. The conduct of any State organ shall be considered an act of that State under international​

law, whether the organ exercises legislative, executive, judicial or any other functions, whatever position​

it holds in the organization of the State, and whatever its character as an organ of the central​

Government or of a territorial unit of the State.​

​

2. An organ includes any person or entity which has that status in accordance with the internal​

law of the State.​

​

​

SOURCE: 20. Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts pg 237​

​

So to prevent stateless persons they make Palestinians citizens of a place that is not a state.

BTW, WTF is a legal entity?

Link?

(COMMENT)

"Legal Entities" have been around for a very long time. In the Case of Palestine, the Allied Powers (utilizing the Authority agreed upon through the Surrender) decided to grant the Mandate Authorities all the powers necessary for the British to fully administer the territory under the Mandate.

◈ full powers of legislation and of administration...​

◈ responsible for enacting a nationality law...​

◈ facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship...​

◈ seeing that the judicial system was established in Palestine...​

◈ full power to provide for public ownership or control of any of the natural resources of the country, the public works, services, and utilities...​

While spoken of in the Mandate as separate authorities and responsibilities, the British "High Commissioner has governed Palestine with the aid of Councils consisting exclusively of British officials;" a consequence out of the lack of cooperation from the Arab Higher Committee. There was no question that the entire international community understood and remained silent on (tacit approval) the total control over the territory subject to the Mandate for Palestine.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, so how does all that make Palestine not a state?

And, what about my first statement?

OK, so how does all that make Palestine not a state?

It wasn't a state before, how does all that make Palestine a state?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tin more, et al,

BLUF: Well, Palestine was a legal "Entity." That is the bottom line. And it stayed a legal entity until the Arab Palestinians and the Arab League screwed it up in the 1948 International Armed Conflict (IAC).

And, what about my first statement?

(COMMENT)

I don't always comment on - what I think are bait type statements (How do I spot a baited question on social media?).

Remember what an "entity" must have before it is legal.

◈ full powers of legislation and of administration...​

◈ responsible for enacting a nationality law...​

◈ facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship...​

◈ seeing that the judicial system was established in Palestine...​

◈ full power to provide for public ownership or control of any of the natural resources of the country, the public works, services, and utilities...​

All of this is a description of what the Allied Powers imparted upon the British relative to the territory under the mandate. It makes it an "Entity" as recognized by the International Judicial System.

OK, so how does all that make Palestine not a state?

(COMMENT)

It is an "Entity" under the framework of International Law.

The British, in the Administration over the territory under the Mandate, established by a Government which has an independent legal personality and is capable of all the things I mentioned, AND establish an "Entity" which is "legal" under the international framework (ie a Legall Entity).

Permanent Court of International Justice (PJIC) recognized the territory under the Mandate as part of the Government of Palestine and consequently also on the part of His Britannic Majesty's Government, in its capacity as Mandatory Power for Palestine, since the year 1921.

The PJIC did not see the territory under the Mandate as an independent and sovereign power unto themselves.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tin more, et al,

BLUF: Well, Palestine was a legal "Entity." That is the bottom line. And it stayed a legal entity until the Arab Palestinians and the Arab League screwed it up in the 1948 International Armed Conflict (IAC).

And, what about my first statement?

(COMMENT)

I don't always comment on - what I think are bait type statements (How do I spot a baited question on social media?).

Remember what an "entity" must have before it is legal.

◈ full powers of legislation and of administration...​

◈ responsible for enacting a nationality law...​

◈ facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship...​

◈ seeing that the judicial system was established in Palestine...​

◈ full power to provide for public ownership or control of any of the natural resources of the country, the public works, services, and utilities...​

All of this is a description of what the Allied Powers imparted upon the British relative to the territory under the mandate. It makes it an "Entity" as recognized by the International Judicial System.

OK, so how does all that make Palestine not a state?

(COMMENT)

It is an "Entity" under the framework of International Law.

The British, in the Administration over the territory under the Mandate, established by a Government which has an independent legal personality and is capable of all the things I mentioned, AND establish an "Entity" which is "legal" under the international framework (ie a Legall Entity).

Permanent Court of International Justice (PJIC) recognized the territory under the Mandate as part of the Government of Palestine and consequently also on the part of His Britannic Majesty's Government, in its capacity as Mandatory Power for Palestine, since the year 1921.

The PJIC did not see the territory under the Mandate as an independent and sovereign power unto themselves.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, but the Mandate left and the UN never picked up the ball. It was not under a foreign administration.

 

[Hollie]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tin more, et al,

BLUF: Well, Palestine was a legal "Entity." That is the bottom line. And it stayed a legal entity until the Arab Palestinians and the Arab League screwed it up in the 1948 International Armed Conflict (IAC).

And, what about my first statement?

(COMMENT)

I don't always comment on - what I think are bait type statements (How do I spot a baited question on social media?).

Remember what an "entity" must have before it is legal.

◈ full powers of legislation and of administration...​

◈ responsible for enacting a nationality law...​

◈ facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship...​

◈ seeing that the judicial system was established in Palestine...​

◈ full power to provide for public ownership or control of any of the natural resources of the country, the public works, services, and utilities...​

All of this is a description of what the Allied Powers imparted upon the British relative to the territory under the mandate. It makes it an "Entity" as recognized by the International Judicial System.

OK, so how does all that make Palestine not a state?

(COMMENT)

It is an "Entity" under the framework of International Law.

The British, in the Administration over the territory under the Mandate, established by a Government which has an independent legal personality and is capable of all the things I mentioned, AND establish an "Entity" which is "legal" under the international framework (ie a Legall Entity).

Permanent Court of International Justice (PJIC) recognized the territory under the Mandate as part of the Government of Palestine and consequently also on the part of His Britannic Majesty's Government, in its capacity as Mandatory Power for Palestine, since the year 1921.

The PJIC did not see the territory under the Mandate as an independent and sovereign power unto themselves.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, but the Mandate left and the UN never picked up the ball. It was not under a foreign administration.

Ok. And a portion of the area fell under the administration of the State of Israel.

Your hurt feelings can be placed ________<——- here.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: The Hostile Arab League Military Forces prevented the UN from taking control of the areas under the 1949 Armistice Agreements.

OK, but the Mandate left and the UN never picked up the ball. It was not under a foreign administration.

(COMMENT)

The Mandate did not leave, it terminated, and the authority transfer to the UN under Article 77a. However, the Arab League was not going to relinquish the territory they gained in the 1948 Israel War of Independence. There was nothing left for the UN to place under Administration.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: The Hostile Arab League Military Forces prevented the UN from taking control of the areas under the 1949 Armistice Agreements.

OK, but the Mandate left and the UN never picked up the ball. It was not under a foreign administration.

(COMMENT)

The Mandate did not leave, it terminated, and the authority transfer to the UN under Article 77a. However, the Arab League was not going to relinquish the territory they gained in the 1948 Israel War of Independence. There was nothing left for the UN to place under Administration.

Most Respectfully,
R

The mandate terminated before the 1948 war.