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

[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: 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

But the remainder of the territory was under some other control. So, there was a conflict between the APG territorial claim and reality.

Not really. The Palestinians claimed territory inside their own international borders. Those borders remained unchanged after the 1948 war. Palestine was under occupation but that does not change borders or sovereignty.

 

[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. With no citation within the Treaty of Lausanne where a 'country of Pally'land' is described, identified or designated, no one has any reason to accept such a 'country' was ever invented by that Treaty.

Thanks.

Link?

WOW, are you confused!

You need to keep up.

Indeed. You chose not to make any attempt to support your claims.

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

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.

So then. With no citation within the Treaty of Lausanne where a 'country of Pally'land' is described, identified or designated, no one has any reason to accept such a 'country' was ever invented by that Treaty.

In terms of confusion and keeping up, what am I confused or not keeping up with?

Link?

 

[Hollie]

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

But the remainder of the territory was under some other control. So, there was a conflict between the APG territorial claim and reality.

Not really. The Palestinians claimed territory inside their own international borders. Those borders remained unchanged after the 1948 war. Palestine was under occupation but that does not change borders or sovereignty.

Indeed, the Arabs-Moslems you claim are Pal'istanians in your invented 'country of Pal'istan' never exercised sovereignty over any land area.

 

[Hollie]

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

But the remainder of the territory was under some other control. So, there was a conflict between the APG territorial claim and reality.

Not really. The Palestinians claimed territory inside their own international borders. Those borders remained unchanged after the 1948 war. Palestine was under occupation but that does not change borders or sovereignty.

Indeed.

Please elaborate on your statement ''The Palestinians claimed territory inside their own international borders.''

What territory was claimed?

Why would the Pals need to 'claim territory' inside their own international borders if those borders already defined your invented 'country of Pal'istan'?

I sense that your argument is ill-defined. If, as you assert, the Treaty of Lausanne created the 'country of Pal'istan', what claiming of land was required?

Link?

 

[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?

Don't run away....post a video!!!!

 

[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.

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

Does it have to?

The Treaty of Lausanne, if you want to call it a 'land treaty', was in relation to terriroty,
allocated for the re-consittution of the Jewish nation, in the San Remo Resolution.

 

[rylah]

Whose Land Episode 5 - The San Remo Resolution

Episode 5 considers the San Remo Resolution. Legal rights were granted to both the Jewish people and the Arab people at the San Remo Conference in April 1920.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Whose Land Episode 5 - The San Remo Resolution

Episode 5 considers the San Remo Resolution. Legal rights were granted to both the Jewish people and the Arab people at the San Remo Conference in April 1920.

Where in San Remo does it mention Israel, Jewish state, or exclusive Jewish rights.

Quote the Passages.

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[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 know of course, this question is asking for something that does not exist. You are asking a political question and not that actual ground truth. In the San Remo Agreement (1920) the name "Israel" was not yet used.

Where in San Remo does it mention Israel, Jewish state, or exclusive Jewish rights.

Quote the Passages.

(COMMENT)

The San Remo Agreement refers to the Balfour Agreement and begins calling the entity as the “national home for the Jewish people” (AKA: The Jewish National Home) later to be called the Jewish State by the UN Special Committee for Palestine, and later Israel in the Announced establishment of the new state.

What I don't get here is the underlying dispute you are trying to champion.

◈ What (specifically) does the name have to do with anything? (It could be called Mars, and it would not adversely change the political outcome.)​

• The territory would be partitioned (“within such boundaries, as may be fixed by the Mandatory”).​

• With the uncooperative Arab Palestinians, they would still be a non-self-governing institution.​

◈ What is changed by the name?​

State your objection clearly.

Most Respectfully,
R

​

l

 

[rylah]

Whose Land Episode 5 - The San Remo Resolution

Episode 5 considers the San Remo Resolution. Legal rights were granted to both the Jewish people and the Arab people at the San Remo Conference in April 1920.

Where in San Remo does it mention Israel, Jewish state, or exclusive Jewish rights.

Quote the Passages.

"The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory, to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 8, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

San Remo Conference Resolution - Retyped Text - English (1920)

San Remo Conference Resolution - Retyped Text - English (1920). San Remo Conference (1920), "San Remo Conference Resolution", UNISPAL, available at http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/DB662E3B80797A9685257A130073F02E, retrieved 21/06/2014.

ecf.org.il

Israel = Jewish people.
Jewish state = national home, following recognition of Israel's historic to re-constitution.
Exclusive Jewish rights = national rights mentioned exclusively in reference to Jewish people.

 

[rylah]

How is Arab settler colonialism
better than American settler collonialism?

 

[P F Tinmore]

What I don't get here is the underlying dispute you are trying to champion.
◈ What (specifically) does the name have to do with anything? (It could be called Mars, and it would not adversely change the political outcome.)

Israeli shills claim that there is no Palestine because it was not mentioned in the Treaty of Lausanne

So why the double standard?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What I don't get here is the underlying dispute you are trying to champion.
◈ What (specifically) does the name have to do with anything? (It could be called Mars, and it would not adversely change the political outcome.)

Israeli shills claim that there is no Palestine because it was not mentioned in the Treaty of Lausanne

So why the double standard?

I claim there is no Palestine.....because there is no Palestine.

 

[Hollie]

What I don't get here is the underlying dispute you are trying to champion.
◈ What (specifically) does the name have to do with anything? (It could be called Mars, and it would not adversely change the political outcome.)

Israeli shills claim that there is no Palestine because it was not mentioned in the Treaty of Lausanne

So why the double standard?

You realize of course that your statement is false and misleading. Obviously you do but you don’t care about honesty and integrity.

It is you who insists that something you call the “country of Pal’istan” was created by the Treaty of Lausanne. As the Treaty in no way invents any such country, it is not unfair to characterize your comment as false and misleading.

This has been addressed for you countless times yet you continue to press an obvious falsehood.

 

[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 ask a question that has contested answers. But at the end of the day, the Arab Palestinians have to live with their choices. There is no "double standard."

BTW: I don't understand what the meaning of "Israeli Shills."

What I don't get here is the underlying dispute you are trying to champion.
◈ What (specifically) does the name have to do with anything? (It could be called Mars, and it would not adversely change the political outcome.)

Israeli shills claim that there is no Palestine because it was not mentioned in the Treaty of Lausanne

So why the double standard?

(COMMENT)

The Treaty does not mention either the State of Palestine or the State of Isreal. Why? (RHETORICAL) Because at that time - neither "State" had a specific territorial partition yet. "Palestine" was a name chosen by the Allied Powers, but with no exact borders defined, to be the territory under the administration of a Mandate. The Borders were (except for the Franco-British Convention Boundary 1920.), at the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne, to be determined.

Israel established its border demarcations in 1948 by actual ground markers and by means of a map as recommended by the UNSCOP (Annex A • A/RES/181 II).

The Allied Arab Contingent and Arab Nationalists established a separate government East of the Jordan River to the border of Iraq. This government was still part of the Mandate for Palestine but untangled from most of the Mandate requirements. The separate government was considered an Emirate in the name of the Emir (later King) Abdullah.

◈ The Arab Palestinians rejected the partition known by the Recommendation as the "Arab State."​

​

◈ Jordan was granted full independence and released from the Mandate in 1946.​

​

◈ Israel was granted Independence and released from the Mandate and UN Trustee System in 1948. The Arab League attacked Israel and Israel successfully defended its territorial sovereignty. What was NOT under Israeli control in 1949, became the Occupied Arab League Territory in 1949. This Occupied Arab League territory included the West Bank and Gaza Strip.​

There was no "double standard." Israel cooperated and maintained its sovereign control. And members of the Arab League secured their holds, and the uncooperative Arab Palestinians successfully got what they got.

Today, the Entity known as the "State of Palestine" (alla 1988) is controlled by a quasi-Government in Ramallah → which has sovereign control over "Area A"...

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

◈ Jordan was granted full independence and released from the Mandate in 1946.◈ Israel was granted Independence and released from the Mandate and UN Trustee System in 1948.

Full independence was finally achieved after World War II by a treaty concluded in London on March 22, 1946, and ʿAbdullāh subsequently proclaimed himself king.

Jordan | History, Population, Flag, Map, King, & Facts

Jordan, Arab country of Southwest Asia, in the rocky desert of the northern Arabian Peninsula. Part of the Ottoman Empire until 1918 and later a mandate of the United Kingdom, Jordan has been an independent kingdom since 1946. The capital and largest city in the country is Amman.

www.britannica.com

Where is Israel's treaty releasing it from the 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: Yeah, we went over this once before.

◈ Jordan was granted full independence and released from the Mandate in 1946.◈ Israel was granted Independence and released from the Mandate and UN Trustee System in 1948.

Full independence was finally achieved after World War II by a treaty concluded in London on March 22, 1946, and ʿAbdullāh subsequently proclaimed himself king.

Jordan | History, Population, Flag, Map, King, & Facts

Jordan, Arab country of Southwest Asia, in the rocky desert of the northern Arabian Peninsula. Part of the Ottoman Empire until 1918 and later a mandate of the United Kingdom, Jordan has been an independent kingdom since 1946. The capital and largest city in the country is Amman.

www.britannica.com

Where is Israel's treaty releasing it from the Mandate?

(COMMENT)

There is no requirement for a treaty. The US does not have a treaty that releases it from the colonial power.

Like the US, Israel declared independence, and successfully defended its defined territory.

The Arab Palestinians: did not meet the criteria to be a state. There is a question as to if it ever met the criteria of a permanent population or a defined territory. The admission to the dispossession of territory also means the population fluctuates.

It will be interesting to see if the Arab League maintains the Ramallah Government as a member. It will be just as interesting to see what (if anything) the courts say.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

◈ Jordan was granted full independence and released from the Mandate in 1946.◈ Israel was granted Independence and released from the Mandate and UN Trustee System in 1948.

Full independence was finally achieved after World War II by a treaty concluded in London on March 22, 1946, and ʿAbdullāh subsequently proclaimed himself king.

Jordan | History, Population, Flag, Map, King, & Facts

Jordan, Arab country of Southwest Asia, in the rocky desert of the northern Arabian Peninsula. Part of the Ottoman Empire until 1918 and later a mandate of the United Kingdom, Jordan has been an independent kingdom since 1946. The capital and largest city in the country is Amman.

www.britannica.com

Where is Israel's treaty releasing it from the Mandate?

BTW: I don't understand what the meaning of "Israeli Shills."

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

BLUF: Yeah, we went over this once before.

◈ Jordan was granted full independence and released from the Mandate in 1946.◈ Israel was granted Independence and released from the Mandate and UN Trustee System in 1948.

Full independence was finally achieved after World War II by a treaty concluded in London on March 22, 1946, and ʿAbdullāh subsequently proclaimed himself king.

Jordan | History, Population, Flag, Map, King, & Facts

Jordan, Arab country of Southwest Asia, in the rocky desert of the northern Arabian Peninsula. Part of the Ottoman Empire until 1918 and later a mandate of the United Kingdom, Jordan has been an independent kingdom since 1946. The capital and largest city in the country is Amman.

www.britannica.com

Where is Israel's treaty releasing it from the Mandate?

(COMMENT)

There is no requirement for a treaty. The US does not have a treaty that releases it from the colonial power.

Like the US, Israel declared independence, and successfully defended its defined territory.

The Arab Palestinians: did not meet the criteria to be a state. There is a question as to if it ever met the criteria of a permanent population or a defined territory. The admission to the dispossession of territory also means the population fluctuates.

It will be interesting to see if the Arab League maintains the Ramallah Government as a member. It will be just as interesting to see what (if anything) the courts say.

Most Respectfully,
R

That Palestine exists or not is a matter of political opinion. The Palestinians and their supporters are changing that opinion.

 

[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 statement is a mistake of fact if not completely deceitful.

But the remainder of the territory was under some other control. So, there was a conflict between the APG territorial claim and reality.

Not really. The Palestinians claimed territory inside their own international borders. Those borders remained unchanged after the 1948 war. Palestine was under occupation but that does not change borders or sovereignty.

(COMMENT)

The border, as defined by the Allied Powers, to the territory under the Mandate is not Palestinian despite the name. "Palestine" (territory under Mandate) has nothing to do with sovereignty associated with the Arab Palestinian people. It is the designation the Allied Powers gave to the British Civil Administration. The name Palestine was effectively put to use in the conference "wishing to settle completely the problems raised by the attribution to Great Britain of the mandates for Palestine and Mesopotamia and by the attribution to France of the mandate over Syria and the Lebanon, all three conferred by the Supreme Council at San Remo (of 25 April 1920)." We have covered this before when we discussed the Franco-British Convention of 23 December 1920.

Those treaty arranged borders and demarcations have to do with the Administration of the Mandates and the relationships between the three Mandates - and - the two Principle Allied Powers (France and Great Britain). They have nothing what so ever to do with Sovereignty - AND - they were NOT as you say: " territory inside their own international borders." By saying "They" - I assume you mean the Arab Palestinians were not deprived or disenfranchised from statehood or sovereignty.

Later in 1923, a third attempt was made to get the Arab Palestinians involved in the establishment of the necessary self-governing institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The Arab Palestinians declined, which represented an early wrung in the ladder of independence, sovereignty, and statehood - which they discarded.

Most Respectfully,
R