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

[P F Tinmore]

The territory became Palestine.

And then it became Israel.

By what treaty?

Link?

Treaty? Why would Israel need a treaty?

That is the only way to legally transfer territory.

 

[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.

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.

The Treaty of Lausanne never created your invented ''country of Pal'istan''.

 

[Hollie]

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.

No. The Arabs-Moslems never became citizens of your invented "Pal'istan''.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The territory became Palestine.

And then it became Israel.

By what treaty?

Link?

Treaty? Why would Israel need a treaty?

That is the only way to legally transfer territory.

Transfer from where?

 

[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.

No. The Arabs-Moslems never became citizens of your invented "Pal'istan''.

Link?

Of course not. You are just blowing smoke out of your ass.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The territory became Palestine.

And then it became Israel.

By what treaty?

Link?

Treaty? Why would Israel need a treaty?

That is the only way to legally transfer territory.

Transfer from where?

 

[Hollie]

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.

No. The Arabs-Moslems never became citizens of your invented "Pal'istan''.

Link?

Of course not. You are just blowing smoke out of your ass.

I see you're angry and emotive but insisting others prove something didn't happen is rather pointless.

So let's play the Tinmore Shuffle, shall we?

Yes. I have a link. Prove I don't.


So, it is really quite simple and something that has been gone over for you in excruciating detail. Nowhere in the Treaty of Lausanne is your imagined ''state of Pally'land'' identified. Nowhere in that Treaty is there any reference to, mention of or even allusion to the Magical Kingdom of Pal'istan.

I'm afraid your wants and needs don't supercede reality.

 

[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 almost got this right (oh, so close).

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.

(COMMENT)

OK → Keeping things simple. I make the following critique:
₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪
✦ In many places in the world, there is a distinction between nationality (le’om) and citizenship (ezrahut). In the case of Article 30, the Treaty speaks exclusively about "nationality" and NOT citizenship. This informational site called KEY DIFFERENCES has a great explanation on the difference between "citizenship" and "nationality." The point is that → they are NOT the same thing; and here you have mixed them up. ("Citizenship" is not addressed anywhere in the Treaty of Lausanne.)

✦ When the issues of Nationality and Citizenship were being discussed in the 1920s, "Palestine" was defined by the Palestine Order in Council:

​

The Territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applied = Palestine = the British Civil Administration = Government of Palestine
The Territories to which the Mandate for Palestine is the formal definition for the short title.
​

"Palestine" was the "short title" to the Territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applied. This was the Civil Administration the British establishment as the "Government of Palestine." The point is that → you have mixed them up. We are talking about the "Legal Entity" of Palestine and NOT the State of Palestine.

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.

No. The Arabs-Moslems never became citizens of your invented "Pal'istan''.

Link?

Of course not. You are just blowing smoke out of your ass.

I see you're angry and emotive but insisting others prove something didn't happen is rather pointless.

So let's play the Tinmore Shuffle, shall we?

Yes. I have a link. Prove I don't.


So, it is really quite simple and something that has been gone over for you in excruciating detail. Nowhere in the Treaty of Lausanne is your imagined ''state of Pally'land'' identified. Nowhere in that Treaty is there any reference to, mention of or even allusion to the Magical Kingdom of Pal'istan.

I'm afraid your wants and needs don't supercede reality.

If you can't prove what you say it is bullshit.

 

[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 almost got this right (oh, so close).

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.

(COMMENT)

OK → Keeping things simple. I make the following critique:
₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪
✦ In many places in the world, there is a distinction between nationality (le’om) and citizenship (ezrahut). In the case of Article 30, the Treaty speaks exclusively about "nationality" and NOT citizenship. This informational site called KEY DIFFERENCES has a great explanation on the difference between "citizenship" and "nationality." The point is that → they are NOT the same thing; and here you have mixed them up. ("Citizenship" is not addressed anywhere in the Treaty of Lausanne.)

✦ When the issues of Nationality and Citizenship were being discussed in the 1920s, "Palestine" was defined by the Palestine Order in Council:

The Territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applied = Palestine = the British Civil Administration = Government of Palestine
The Territories to which the Mandate for Palestine is the formal definition for the short title.
​

"Palestine" was the "short title" to the Territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applied. This was the Civil Administration the British establishment as the "Government of Palestine." The point is that → you have mixed them up. We are talking about the "Legal Entity" of Palestine and NOT the State of Palestine.

Most Respectfully,
R

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

HUH?

The Palestinians have Palestinian nationality and Palestinian citizenship. It goes with the territory which is Palestine.

 

[RoccoR]

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

BLUF: I think you have a misunderstanding.

​

(a) “treaty” means an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation; ​

SOURCE: Vienna Convention on Treaty Law​

​

​

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

(COMMENT)

The San Remo Convention is a type of Treaty between certain members of the Allied Powers. There is no such thing as a "Land Treaty."

The territory became Palestine.

And then it became Israel.

By what treaty?
Link?

(COMMENT)

The process was the "Right of Self-Determination."

The Treaty (of sorts) was Article 3 of the Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States December 26, 1933; "The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states."

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Treaty (of sorts) was Article 3 of the Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States December 26, 1933; "The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states."

Indeed!

United Nations Maintenance Page

unispal.un.org

 

[Hollie]

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.

No. The Arabs-Moslems never became citizens of your invented "Pal'istan''.

Link?

Of course not. You are just blowing smoke out of your ass.

I see you're angry and emotive but insisting others prove something didn't happen is rather pointless.

So let's play the Tinmore Shuffle, shall we?

Yes. I have a link. Prove I don't.


So, it is really quite simple and something that has been gone over for you in excruciating detail. Nowhere in the Treaty of Lausanne is your imagined ''state of Pally'land'' identified. Nowhere in that Treaty is there any reference to, mention of or even allusion to the Magical Kingdom of Pal'istan.

I'm afraid your wants and needs don't supercede reality.

If you can't prove what you say it is bullshit.

Indeed!

That's a valid point.

So then, provide the exact citation within the Treaty of Lausanne where a 'country of Pally'land' is described, identified or designated.

Thanks.

Link?

 

[P F Tinmore]

The process was the "Right of Self-Determination."

The "Right of Self-Determination." applies to people inside their own territory. It does not change territory.

 

[Hollie]

The Treaty (of sorts) was Article 3 of the Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States December 26, 1933; "The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states."

Indeed!

United Nations Maintenance Page

unispal.un.org

Indeed!

A 'progress report'

What 'country' is owned by the Arabs-Moslems?

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 → (oh, so close).

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

HUH?

The Palestinians have Palestinian nationality and Palestinian citizenship. It goes with the territory which is Palestine.

(COMMENT)

The Citizenship confered by the Palestine Citizenship Order desolved along with the authority for the Order when the Mandate Terminated. The territory formerly subject to the Mandate for Palestine (Less Israel and less Jordan and less the Gaza Strip) was Annexed by Jordan and the the people became citizens of Jordan.

Citizenship is issued by the State Authority. And the State Authority can change. However, your place of birth (establishing Nationality) will never change. Your Nationality will always be whatever it was at the time you were born. See → Difference Between Nationality and Citizenship (with Comparison Chart) You cannot be a national of more than one country one country. But you can have daul-citizenship or more, depending on the individual country's law.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Hollie]

The process was the "Right of Self-Determination."

The "Right of Self-Determination." applies to people inside their own territory. It does not change territory.

Indeed!

What 'country'?

Your unilateral invention of a 'country of Pal'istan' is a rather weak argument for the enabling of the 'country of Pal'istan'.

indeed!

Link?

 

[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.

No. The Arabs-Moslems never became citizens of your invented "Pal'istan''.

Link?

Of course not. You are just blowing smoke out of your ass.

I see you're angry and emotive but insisting others prove something didn't happen is rather pointless.

So let's play the Tinmore Shuffle, shall we?

Yes. I have a link. Prove I don't.


So, it is really quite simple and something that has been gone over for you in excruciating detail. Nowhere in the Treaty of Lausanne is your imagined ''state of Pally'land'' identified. Nowhere in that Treaty is there any reference to, mention of or even allusion to the Magical Kingdom of Pal'istan.

I'm afraid your wants and needs don't supercede reality.

If you can't prove what you say it is bullshit.

Indeed!

That's a valid point.

So then, provide the exact citation within the Treaty of Lausanne where a 'country of Pally'land' is described, identified or designated.

Thanks.

Link?

WOW, are you confused!

You need to keep up.

 

[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 get quarter credit. You spelled your name right.

The Treaty (of sorts) was Article 3 of the Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States December 26, 1933; "The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states."

Indeed!

United Nations Maintenance Page

unispal.un.org

(COMMENT)

I suppose the All Palestine Government (APG) could have claimed the Gaza Strip as their country, but nothing more. But the remainder of the territory was under some other control. So, there was a conflict between the APG territorial claim and reality.

And I suppose that even a claim on the Gaza Strip can be argued since the APG was subordinate to the Egyptian Military Governor even prior to the bogus announcement of the provisional government.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Citizenship confered by the Palestine Citizenship Order desolved along with the authority for the Order when the Mandate Terminated.

Who said that?

Link?