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

[RoccoR]

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

BLUF: This is another enlightened response from the pro-Palestinian Camp trying to reinforce the idea behind the analogy of → "going to Europe to attack the Zionists" has some merit. That the inverse → "Jews going to Palestine and attacking Arabs" is somehow true.

Short version.
The Zionists are the aggressors.

Another bit of falsehood/misinformation you are completely comfortable spewing.

Any proof of that?
Of course not.

(COMMENT)

The idea here is for the pro-Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) to promote the concept that armed Jewish immigrants, made some sort of amphibious assualt and storming the beaches against the habitual residents of the territory, in a bid for territorial capture and control, sometime after the the Armistice of Mudros 1918. THEN, asking for proof that this alternate reality did not occur.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: At the hundredth anniversary of the Battle of Tel Hai (which occurred on March 1, 1920), it is instructive to recall the heated debate that preceded it among the Yishuv leadership concerning the question of abandoning the site. This debate sheds light on the decline of the Zionist left in general and the results of the latest Israeli elections in particular.
SOURCE: The 100th Anniversary of the Battle of Tel Hai… and the Election Results

The fact is that the Jewish immigrants were encouraged (by agreement in 1920 and authorized by Mandate in 1922) to come and establish a Jewish National Home, by the title holders to the territory. The territory (at that time) was under the League of Nations Mandate with the Rights and Title surrendered by Treaty into the hands of the Allied Powers.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Hollie]

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

BLUF: Yes, this claim is trying to make the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) look like the victims to arouse sympathy in their favor.

Short version.

The Zionists are the aggressors.

(COMMENT)

Although the handwriting was on the wall, the formal decision to encourage immigration was made by the Allied Powers was made at the San Remo Convention (April 1920). That decision included the Mandate that the British Government, the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.

​

The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.​

SOURCE: Article 6 • Mandate for Palestine (1922)​

​

​

This is NOT the same thing as an Act of Aggression.

​

Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this Definition.
SOURCE: A/RES/29/3314 Definition of Aggression 14 December 1974

​

​

The fallacy here is that the HoAP is trying to use and apply the late-20th Century Political determinism to critique the Principal Allied Powers on the decisions made in the early-20th Century. It just does not work. To critique the Allied Powers of the Great War - or for that matter - the Allied Powers of World War II, you have to ally the Rule of Law that was made workable in those times.

Just before the turn of the Century (1998), now nearly a quarter-Century ago, the theory and concept of the International Criminal Court (ICC) were to insure by "emphasizing that the International Criminal Court established under Rule of Law shall be complementary to national criminal jurisdictions." TODAY, the “act of aggression” means the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State.

(∑Ω)

IF you apply the Rule of Law as it was understood by the Allied Power in connection with the actions and decisions made by the Allied Powers, THEN you must agree, these world powers were the Titans that determined the Rule of Law.

IF you apply the understanding of an "Act of Aggression" as the Allied Powers understood it to be in the time of both the Great War and World War II, THEN you will begin to understand that the Jewish Immigration neither used an armed force against any sovereignty, - nor - did the Jewish Immigration pose a threat territorial integrity or political independence of any state. Immigration was encouraged by the Allied Powers, the receivers of the "Rights and Title" to the territory surrendered by the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic.

Most Respectfully,
R

I know who was in cahoots with the Zionists with the plan to kick out the natives and set up shop.

You have a conspiracy theory?

 

[Hollie]

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

BLUF: Yes, this is a sleight of hand used in propaganda manipulation and misinformation.

It is to draw sympathy in support of the Hostile Arab Palestinians who created the conditions for conflict.

Do you mean like going to Europe to attack the Zionists?

(COMMENT)

This is one of those sarcastic backhanded remarks that suggest the Jewish People of Israel came from Europe and attacked the Arab Palestinians. As if some strange amphibious assault took place and crushed the Arab Palestinian people.

This type of comment is used to misdirect or sidetrack the flow of the discussion from terrorism to misuse of force to now the immigration of Jewish people to the territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine. The Arab Palestinians want the readership to think that this territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine was the sovereign to the Arabs of Palestine. (NOT)

For eight centuries before the Great War (WWI), which ended in 1918:

The territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine was Sovereign to the Ottoman Empire until the Armistice Convention of 1918. In 1918 the territory came under the effective control of the Allied Powers and through The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) until the conclusion of the San Remo Conference (April 1920) which decided to place the territory under Civil Administration. In June 1920, the British Government established a Civil Administration over the territory and remained in place until 1946 when Jordan established its Independence; and then later, in 1948, when the British withdrew from the entirety of the territory, west of the Jordan River. In May 1948, the National Council for the Jewish State and the Provisional Government established the State of Israel along the borders outlined in Part II of the Recommendation along the boundaries noted Partition Plan - Annex A → and Resolution 181 (II) of the General Assembly, dated 29 November 1947.

A conflict immediately broke-out wherein the Arab League Forces rolled-into the territory, formerly under the Mandate for Palestine, by force taking control of the West Bank, most of Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip. Still, at this point, the Arabs of Palestine had no sovereign territory. The cessation of hostilities was secured by means of a series of Armistice Agreements which would remain in force until a more permanent peace arrangement could be executed. In 1979, the Peace Treaty was established with Egypt and by 1994, a permanent peace was arranged with Jordan. These two treaties covered the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip. In 1988, the Hashemite Kingdom cut all political ties with the West Bank, leaving it in the hands of the State of Israel. In 2005, Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip, leaving it in the hands of the Hostile Arab Palestinians.

(∑Ω)

I just have to say that volumes and volumes have clarified this thumbnail clipping of this history. But, the point here is that at NO TIME did the Arabs of Palestine have any sovereign control over any territory until the Oslo Accords established Area "A" (1995) (full civil and security control by the Palestinian Authority) and the total withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Gaza Strip in 2005.

Most Respectfully,
R

Short version.

The Zionists are the aggressors.

Another bit of falsehood / misinformation you are completely comfortable spewing.

Any proof of that?

Of course not.

You supply ample proof of your conspiracy theories.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The territory (at that time) was under the League of Nations Mandate with the Rights and Title surrendered by Treaty into the hands of the Allied Powers.

Not true. The territories were transferred to the new states.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The idea here is for the pro-Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) to promote the concept that armed Jewish immigrants, made some sort of amphibious assualt and storming the beaches against the habitual residents of the territory, in a bid for territorial capture and control, sometime after the the Armistice of Mudros 1918. THEN, asking for proof that this alternate reality did not occur.

The truth is that the Zionists invaded under the cover of the British military.

Here was born the struggle over the maintenance of the land, with each node of settlement contributing to the control of the spatial expanse and ultimately the setting of the border.

The 100th Anniversary of the Battle of Tel Hai… and the Election Results

BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 1,470, March 5, 2020EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: At the hundredth anniversary of the Battle of Tel Hai (which occurred on March 1, 1920), it is instructive to recall the h

besacenter.org

Thanks for the link. Of course this preceded the Mandate period.

 

[Hollie]

The territory (at that time) was under the League of Nations Mandate with the Rights and Title surrendered by Treaty into the hands of the Allied Powers.

Not true. The territories were transferred to the new states.

You literally spam thread after thread with this nonsense as this has been addressed multiple times for you, even in this thread.

 

[Hollie]

The idea here is for the pro-Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) to promote the concept that armed Jewish immigrants, made some sort of amphibious assualt and storming the beaches against the habitual residents of the territory, in a bid for territorial capture and control, sometime after the the Armistice of Mudros 1918. THEN, asking for proof that this alternate reality did not occur.

The truth is that the Zionists invaded under the cover of the British military.

Here was born the struggle over the maintenance of the land, with each node of settlement contributing to the control of the spatial expanse and ultimately the setting of the border.​

​

The 100th Anniversary of the Battle of Tel Hai… and the Election Results

BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 1,470, March 5, 2020EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: At the hundredth anniversary of the Battle of Tel Hai (which occurred on March 1, 1920), it is instructive to recall the h

besacenter.org

Thanks for the link. Of course this preceded the Mandate period.

Not true. There was no invasion. Identify the ‘invasion” you’re rattling on about.

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: You simply do not know what you are talking about.

The territory (at that time) was under the League of Nations Mandate with the Rights and Title surrendered by Treaty into the hands of the Allied Powers.

Not true. The territories were transferred to the new states.

(COMMENT)

I simply do not know what requirement that needs "Transferred." What needs to be transferred?

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned. The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.

Pursuant to the San Remo Resolution of 25 April 1920: Turkey hereby undertakes, in accordance with the provisions of Article [132 of the Treaty of Sevres] to accept any decisions which may be taken in this connection.

Outside her frontiers as fixed by the present Treaty Turkey hereby renounces in favour of the Principal Allied Powers all rights and title which she could claim on any ground over or concerning any territories outside Europe which are not otherwise disposed of by the present Treaty.

Turkey undertakes to recognise and conform to the measures which may be taken now or in the future by the Principal Allied Powers, in agreement where necessary with third Powers, in order to carry the above stipulation into effect.

This insistence that some requirement existed for a "transfer" overrides the Treaty is absurd. The Allied Powers decides and it was done.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[rylah]

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

BLUF: Yes, this is a sleight of hand used in propaganda manipulation and misinformation.

It is to draw sympathy in support of the Hostile Arab Palestinians who created the conditions for conflict.

Do you mean like going to Europe to attack the Zionists?

(COMMENT)

This is one of those sarcastic backhanded remarks that suggest the Jewish People of Israel came from Europe and attacked the Arab Palestinians. As if some strange amphibious assault took place and crushed the Arab Palestinian people.

This type of comment is used to misdirect or sidetrack the flow of the discussion from terrorism to misuse of force to now the immigration of Jewish people to the territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine. The Arab Palestinians want the readership to think that this territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine was the sovereign to the Arabs of Palestine. (NOT)

For eight centuries before the Great War (WWI), which ended in 1918:

The territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine was Sovereign to the Ottoman Empire until the Armistice Convention of 1918. In 1918 the territory came under the effective control of the Allied Powers and through The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) until the conclusion of the San Remo Conference (April 1920) which decided to place the territory under Civil Administration. In June 1920, the British Government established a Civil Administration over the territory and remained in place until 1946 when Jordan established its Independence; and then later, in 1948, when the British withdrew from the entirety of the territory, west of the Jordan River. In May 1948, the National Council for the Jewish State and the Provisional Government established the State of Israel along the borders outlined in Part II of the Recommendation along the boundaries noted Partition Plan - Annex A → and Resolution 181 (II) of the General Assembly, dated 29 November 1947.

A conflict immediately broke-out wherein the Arab League Forces rolled-into the territory, formerly under the Mandate for Palestine, by force taking control of the West Bank, most of Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip. Still, at this point, the Arabs of Palestine had no sovereign territory. The cessation of hostilities was secured by means of a series of Armistice Agreements which would remain in force until a more permanent peace arrangement could be executed. In 1979, the Peace Treaty was established with Egypt and by 1994, a permanent peace was arranged with Jordan. These two treaties covered the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip. In 1988, the Hashemite Kingdom cut all political ties with the West Bank, leaving it in the hands of the State of Israel. In 2005, Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip, leaving it in the hands of the Hostile Arab Palestinians.

(∑Ω)

I just have to say that volumes and volumes have clarified this thumbnail clipping of this history. But, the point here is that at NO TIME did the Arabs of Palestine have any sovereign control over any territory until the Oslo Accords established Area "A" (1995) (full civil and security control by the Palestinian Authority) and the total withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Gaza Strip in 2005.

Most Respectfully,
R

Short version.

The Zionists are the aggressors.

Arab agression predates Zionism.

So how can Zionists be the agressors
when they organized in response to Arab pogroms?

 

[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: You simply do not know what you are talking about.

The territory (at that time) was under the League of Nations Mandate with the Rights and Title surrendered by Treaty into the hands of the Allied Powers.

Not true. The territories were transferred to the new states.

(COMMENT)

I simply do not know what requirement that needs "Transferred." What needs to be transferred?

​

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned. The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.​

​

​

Pursuant to the San Remo Resolution of 25 April 1920: Turkey hereby undertakes, in accordance with the provisions of Article [132 of the Treaty of Sevres] to accept any decisions which may be taken in this connection.

​

Outside her frontiers as fixed by the present Treaty Turkey hereby renounces in favour of the Principal Allied Powers all rights and title which she could claim on any ground over or concerning any territories outside Europe which are not otherwise disposed of by the present Treaty.​

​

Turkey undertakes to recognise and conform to the measures which may be taken now or in the future by the Principal Allied Powers, in agreement where necessary with third Powers, in order to carry the above stipulation into effect.​

​

​

This insistence that some requirement existed for a "transfer" overrides the Treaty is absurd. The Allied Powers decides and it was done.

Most Respectfully,
R

This insistence that some requirement existed for a "transfer" overrides the Treaty is absurd. The Allied Powers decides and it was done.

Nothing overrides the treaty. The territories were designed to be new states. The allied powers decided not to annex the territories. The territories needed to be transferred away from Turkey to the new states. This transfer was referenced in Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne.

 

[rylah]

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

BLUF: You simply do not know what you are talking about.

The territory (at that time) was under the League of Nations Mandate with the Rights and Title surrendered by Treaty into the hands of the Allied Powers.

Not true. The territories were transferred to the new states.

(COMMENT)

I simply do not know what requirement that needs "Transferred." What needs to be transferred?

​

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned. The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.​

​

​

Pursuant to the San Remo Resolution of 25 April 1920: Turkey hereby undertakes, in accordance with the provisions of Article [132 of the Treaty of Sevres] to accept any decisions which may be taken in this connection.

​

Outside her frontiers as fixed by the present Treaty Turkey hereby renounces in favour of the Principal Allied Powers all rights and title which she could claim on any ground over or concerning any territories outside Europe which are not otherwise disposed of by the present Treaty.​

​

Turkey undertakes to recognise and conform to the measures which may be taken now or in the future by the Principal Allied Powers, in agreement where necessary with third Powers, in order to carry the above stipulation into effect.​

​

​

This insistence that some requirement existed for a "transfer" overrides the Treaty is absurd. The Allied Powers decides and it was done.

Most Respectfully,
R

This insistence that some requirement existed for a "transfer" overrides the Treaty is absurd. The Allied Powers decides and it was done.

Nothing overrides the treaty. The territories were designed to be new states. The allied powers decided not to annex the territories. The territories needed to be transferred away from Turkey to the new states. This transfer was referenced in Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne.

By that time the territory was already designated for the Jewish nation,
with the San Remo treaty - 2 years prior to that.

Try something new.

 

[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: You simply do not know what you are talking about.

The territory (at that time) was under the League of Nations Mandate with the Rights and Title surrendered by Treaty into the hands of the Allied Powers.

Not true. The territories were transferred to the new states.

(COMMENT)

I simply do not know what requirement that needs "Transferred." What needs to be transferred?

​

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned. The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.​

​

​

Pursuant to the San Remo Resolution of 25 April 1920: Turkey hereby undertakes, in accordance with the provisions of Article [132 of the Treaty of Sevres] to accept any decisions which may be taken in this connection.

​

Outside her frontiers as fixed by the present Treaty Turkey hereby renounces in favour of the Principal Allied Powers all rights and title which she could claim on any ground over or concerning any territories outside Europe which are not otherwise disposed of by the present Treaty.​

​

Turkey undertakes to recognise and conform to the measures which may be taken now or in the future by the Principal Allied Powers, in agreement where necessary with third Powers, in order to carry the above stipulation into effect.​

​

​

This insistence that some requirement existed for a "transfer" overrides the Treaty is absurd. The Allied Powers decides and it was done.

Most Respectfully,
R

This insistence that some requirement existed for a "transfer" overrides the Treaty is absurd. The Allied Powers decides and it was done.

Nothing overrides the treaty. The territories were designed to be new states. The allied powers decided not to annex the territories. The territories needed to be transferred away from Turkey to the new states. This transfer was referenced in Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne.

By that time the territory was already designated for the Jewish nation,
with the San Remo treaty - 2 years prior to that.

Try something less obvious.

San Remo was not a land treaty.

 

[rylah]

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

BLUF: You simply do not know what you are talking about.

The territory (at that time) was under the League of Nations Mandate with the Rights and Title surrendered by Treaty into the hands of the Allied Powers.

Not true. The territories were transferred to the new states.

(COMMENT)

I simply do not know what requirement that needs "Transferred." What needs to be transferred?

​

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned. The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.​

​

​

Pursuant to the San Remo Resolution of 25 April 1920: Turkey hereby undertakes, in accordance with the provisions of Article [132 of the Treaty of Sevres] to accept any decisions which may be taken in this connection.

​

Outside her frontiers as fixed by the present Treaty Turkey hereby renounces in favour of the Principal Allied Powers all rights and title which she could claim on any ground over or concerning any territories outside Europe which are not otherwise disposed of by the present Treaty.​

​

Turkey undertakes to recognise and conform to the measures which may be taken now or in the future by the Principal Allied Powers, in agreement where necessary with third Powers, in order to carry the above stipulation into effect.​

​

​

This insistence that some requirement existed for a "transfer" overrides the Treaty is absurd. The Allied Powers decides and it was done.

Most Respectfully,
R

This insistence that some requirement existed for a "transfer" overrides the Treaty is absurd. The Allied Powers decides and it was done.

Nothing overrides the treaty. The territories were designed to be new states. The allied powers decided not to annex the territories. The territories needed to be transferred away from Turkey to the new states. This transfer was referenced in Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne.

By that time the territory was already designated for the Jewish nation,
with the San Remo treaty - 2 years prior to that.

Try something less obvious.

San Remo was not a land treaty.

Did it have to be?
And if you claim the treaty of Lausanne is a land treaty,
then it's the extention of the San Remo Resolution.

 

[Hollie]

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

BLUF: You simply do not know what you are talking about.

The territory (at that time) was under the League of Nations Mandate with the Rights and Title surrendered by Treaty into the hands of the Allied Powers.

Not true. The territories were transferred to the new states.

(COMMENT)

I simply do not know what requirement that needs "Transferred." What needs to be transferred?

​

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned. The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.​

​

​

Pursuant to the San Remo Resolution of 25 April 1920: Turkey hereby undertakes, in accordance with the provisions of Article [132 of the Treaty of Sevres] to accept any decisions which may be taken in this connection.

​

Outside her frontiers as fixed by the present Treaty Turkey hereby renounces in favour of the Principal Allied Powers all rights and title which she could claim on any ground over or concerning any territories outside Europe which are not otherwise disposed of by the present Treaty.​

​

Turkey undertakes to recognise and conform to the measures which may be taken now or in the future by the Principal Allied Powers, in agreement where necessary with third Powers, in order to carry the above stipulation into effect.​

​

​

This insistence that some requirement existed for a "transfer" overrides the Treaty is absurd. The Allied Powers decides and it was done.

Most Respectfully,
R

This insistence that some requirement existed for a "transfer" overrides the Treaty is absurd. The Allied Powers decides and it was done.

Nothing overrides the treaty. The territories were designed to be new states. The allied powers decided not to annex the territories. The territories needed to be transferred away from Turkey to the new states. This transfer was referenced in Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne.

What states? You consistently run away from addressing this.


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: Again: You simply do not know what you are talking about.

This insistence that some requirement existed for a "transfer" overrides the Treaty is absurd. The Allied Powers decides and it was done.

Nothing overrides the treaty. The territories were designed to be new states. The allied powers decided not to annex the territories. The territories needed to be transferred away from Turkey to the new states. This transfer was referenced in Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne.

(COMMENT)

Article 30 is about the assignment of Nationality. And that is the name of the section.

That was fulfilled several times. Today, the subject of Nationality and Refugees is covered by the convention. It need not be mentioned in treaties anymore.

The people of the West Bank were Ottoman Citizens, then received citizenship by Mandate Administration, then Jordanian citizenship, and now fuzzy Palestinian citizenship.

Finally, the Treaty makes no mention of Palestine as a state. It was covered under Syria. The Allied Powers (specifically France and Great Britain) agreed on the partitioning of Syrian territory. (We've covered this before. See Posting #647)

​

Article 30 just says that the Nationality goes with the territory, whatever the territory may become. Hense the Palestine Citizenship Order.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Article 30 just says that the Nationality goes with the territory, whatever the territory may become. Hense the Palestine Citizenship Order.

Bingo!

The territory became Palestine. The Palestinians became citizens of Palestine. Not the citizens of the Mandate. Not the citizens of Britain.

Citizenship is the relation between the people and the state.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The territory became Palestine.

And then it became Israel.

 

[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: You simply do not know what you are talking about.

The territory (at that time) was under the League of Nations Mandate with the Rights and Title surrendered by Treaty into the hands of the Allied Powers.

Not true. The territories were transferred to the new states.

(COMMENT)

I simply do not know what requirement that needs "Transferred." What needs to be transferred?

​

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned. The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.​

​

​

Pursuant to the San Remo Resolution of 25 April 1920: Turkey hereby undertakes, in accordance with the provisions of Article [132 of the Treaty of Sevres] to accept any decisions which may be taken in this connection.

​

Outside her frontiers as fixed by the present Treaty Turkey hereby renounces in favour of the Principal Allied Powers all rights and title which she could claim on any ground over or concerning any territories outside Europe which are not otherwise disposed of by the present Treaty.​

​

Turkey undertakes to recognise and conform to the measures which may be taken now or in the future by the Principal Allied Powers, in agreement where necessary with third Powers, in order to carry the above stipulation into effect.​

​

​

This insistence that some requirement existed for a "transfer" overrides the Treaty is absurd. The Allied Powers decides and it was done.

Most Respectfully,
R

This insistence that some requirement existed for a "transfer" overrides the Treaty is absurd. The Allied Powers decides and it was done.

Nothing overrides the treaty. The territories were designed to be new states. The allied powers decided not to annex the territories. The territories needed to be transferred away from Turkey to the new states. This transfer was referenced in Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne.

By that time the territory was already designated for the Jewish nation,
with the San Remo treaty - 2 years prior to that.

Try something less obvious.

San Remo was not a land treaty.

Did it have to be?
And if you claim the treaty of Lausanne is a land treaty,
then it's the extention of the San Remo Resolution.

The Treaty of Lausanne was a land treaty. San Remo was not.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The territory became Palestine.

And then it became Israel.

By what treaty?

Link?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The territory became Palestine.

And then it became Israel.

By what treaty?

Link?

Treaty? Why would Israel need a treaty?