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

[Hollie]

Hey, I'm just following your argument. YOU claim that a State has to demonstrate its acquisition of territory through a treaty.

So, which treaty states that Jordan acquired territory? OR, if you decide that you don't need a specific treaty which demonstrates that Jordan acquired territory -- but that there was this list of preplanned States -- then show me where this list is. OR if there is no such list then show me how you know Jordan is on the list and acquired territory.

Or admit that your argument is insupportable.

It did. It is still there and undisputed.

"It did", what?

Jordan acquired territory by treaty? Cool. What treaty creates the acquisition of territory by Jordan?

A treaty which mentions Jordan? Or a treaty that doesn't mention Jordan? If it doesn't mention Jordan how do we know Jordan was meant?

The land was already there. The people were already there. the only difference was that they were no longer under Turkish rule. Nobody had to "give" them anything.

So now you are pulling back your whole silly claim and saying that States don't have to acquire territory?

You are unbelievable.

Why are you trying to make this more complicated than it is? This is how it went down in Palestine which was the same for all of the new states.
-------------------
The Treaty of Peace between the allied powers and Turkey officially ending World War I was signed in Lausanne, Switzerland, on 24 July 1923.121 Setting out the legal status of the territories detached from Turkey, the Treaty had the effect of law in Palestine, as it was extended to this country by an ordinance,122 on 6 August 1924.

The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the perspective of public international law. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British government pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine.”123 And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality.”124

Most of the post-World War I peace treaties embodied nationality provisions and the Treaty of Lausanne was no exception.125 It addressed the nationality of the inhabitants in the territories detached from Turkey in Articles 30-6. These articles replaced, with certain modifications, Articles 123-31 of the draft Treaty of Sèvres of 1920.126

Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel

Deflection.

An obscure opinion.

 

[P F Tinmore]

It did. It is still there and undisputed.

"It did", what?

Jordan acquired territory by treaty? Cool. What treaty creates the acquisition of territory by Jordan?

A treaty which mentions Jordan? Or a treaty that doesn't mention Jordan? If it doesn't mention Jordan how do we know Jordan was meant?

The land was already there. The people were already there. the only difference was that they were no longer under Turkish rule. Nobody had to "give" them anything.

So now you are pulling back your whole silly claim and saying that States don't have to acquire territory?

You are unbelievable.

Why are you trying to make this more complicated than it is? This is how it went down in Palestine which was the same for all of the new states.
-------------------
The Treaty of Peace between the allied powers and Turkey officially ending World War I was signed in Lausanne, Switzerland, on 24 July 1923.121 Setting out the legal status of the territories detached from Turkey, the Treaty had the effect of law in Palestine, as it was extended to this country by an ordinance,122 on 6 August 1924.

The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the perspective of public international law. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British government pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine.”123 And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality.”124

Most of the post-World War I peace treaties embodied nationality provisions and the Treaty of Lausanne was no exception.125 It addressed the nationality of the inhabitants in the territories detached from Turkey in Articles 30-6. These articles replaced, with certain modifications, Articles 123-31 of the draft Treaty of Sèvres of 1920.126

Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel

Deflection.

An obscure opinion.

It is all footnoted.

So, post something different.

 

[Hollie]

"It did", what?

Jordan acquired territory by treaty? Cool. What treaty creates the acquisition of territory by Jordan?

A treaty which mentions Jordan? Or a treaty that doesn't mention Jordan? If it doesn't mention Jordan how do we know Jordan was meant?

The land was already there. The people were already there. the only difference was that they were no longer under Turkish rule. Nobody had to "give" them anything.

So now you are pulling back your whole silly claim and saying that States don't have to acquire territory?

You are unbelievable.

Why are you trying to make this more complicated than it is? This is how it went down in Palestine which was the same for all of the new states.
-------------------
The Treaty of Peace between the allied powers and Turkey officially ending World War I was signed in Lausanne, Switzerland, on 24 July 1923.121 Setting out the legal status of the territories detached from Turkey, the Treaty had the effect of law in Palestine, as it was extended to this country by an ordinance,122 on 6 August 1924.

The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the perspective of public international law. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British government pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine.”123 And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality.”124

Most of the post-World War I peace treaties embodied nationality provisions and the Treaty of Lausanne was no exception.125 It addressed the nationality of the inhabitants in the territories detached from Turkey in Articles 30-6. These articles replaced, with certain modifications, Articles 123-31 of the draft Treaty of Sèvres of 1920.126

Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel

Deflection.

An obscure opinion.

It is all footnoted.

So, post something different.

What does footnoting have to do with an opinion?

Copy and paste something else you don't understand and can't defend.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The land was already there. The people were already there. the only difference was that they were no longer under Turkish rule. Nobody had to "give" them anything.

So now you are pulling back your whole silly claim and saying that States don't have to acquire territory?

You are unbelievable.

Why are you trying to make this more complicated than it is? This is how it went down in Palestine which was the same for all of the new states.
-------------------
The Treaty of Peace between the allied powers and Turkey officially ending World War I was signed in Lausanne, Switzerland, on 24 July 1923.121 Setting out the legal status of the territories detached from Turkey, the Treaty had the effect of law in Palestine, as it was extended to this country by an ordinance,122 on 6 August 1924.

The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the perspective of public international law. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British government pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine.”123 And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality.”124

Most of the post-World War I peace treaties embodied nationality provisions and the Treaty of Lausanne was no exception.125 It addressed the nationality of the inhabitants in the territories detached from Turkey in Articles 30-6. These articles replaced, with certain modifications, Articles 123-31 of the draft Treaty of Sèvres of 1920.126

Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel

Deflection.

An obscure opinion.

It is all footnoted.

So, post something different.

What does footnoting have to do with an opinion?

Copy and paste something else you don't understand and can't defend.

Here is something else to go over your head.

https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1045&context=mjil

 

[Hollie]

So now you are pulling back your whole silly claim and saying that States don't have to acquire territory?

You are unbelievable.

Why are you trying to make this more complicated than it is? This is how it went down in Palestine which was the same for all of the new states.
-------------------
The Treaty of Peace between the allied powers and Turkey officially ending World War I was signed in Lausanne, Switzerland, on 24 July 1923.121 Setting out the legal status of the territories detached from Turkey, the Treaty had the effect of law in Palestine, as it was extended to this country by an ordinance,122 on 6 August 1924.

The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the perspective of public international law. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British government pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine.”123 And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality.”124

Most of the post-World War I peace treaties embodied nationality provisions and the Treaty of Lausanne was no exception.125 It addressed the nationality of the inhabitants in the territories detached from Turkey in Articles 30-6. These articles replaced, with certain modifications, Articles 123-31 of the draft Treaty of Sèvres of 1920.126

Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel

Deflection.

An obscure opinion.

It is all footnoted.

So, post something different.

What does footnoting have to do with an opinion?

Copy and paste something else you don't understand and can't defend.

Here is something else to go over your head.

https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1045&context=mjil

More cutting and pasting you don't understand. You have cut and pasted that previously even though debunked.

Thanks for the laughs.

 

[Sixties Fan]

So now you are pulling back your whole silly claim and saying that States don't have to acquire territory?

You are unbelievable.

Why are you trying to make this more complicated than it is? This is how it went down in Palestine which was the same for all of the new states.
-------------------
The Treaty of Peace between the allied powers and Turkey officially ending World War I was signed in Lausanne, Switzerland, on 24 July 1923.121 Setting out the legal status of the territories detached from Turkey, the Treaty had the effect of law in Palestine, as it was extended to this country by an ordinance,122 on 6 August 1924.

The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the perspective of public international law. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British government pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine.”123 And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality.”124

Most of the post-World War I peace treaties embodied nationality provisions and the Treaty of Lausanne was no exception.125 It addressed the nationality of the inhabitants in the territories detached from Turkey in Articles 30-6. These articles replaced, with certain modifications, Articles 123-31 of the draft Treaty of Sèvres of 1920.126

Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel

Deflection.

An obscure opinion.

It is all footnoted.

So, post something different.

What does footnoting have to do with an opinion?

Copy and paste something else you don't understand and can't defend.

Here is something else to go over your head.

https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1045&context=mjil

You always seem to chose those who know as much as you do:

(Reviews on one of his books)

"International Law Perspective" Without International Law
ByNon August 8, 2011
Format: Paperback
As a student of law, I borrowed this book anticipating arguments about Palestinian statehood deeply founded in international law. I looked for references to key principles, decisions and treaties - to no avail. For a book that purports to give an "international law perspective" on the Israeli Palestinian conflict, this book contains remarkably little legal content, and rather too much dubious historical commentary. Seeing as it fails both as history and as a legal analysis, I'm left wondering whether this book has any merit at all.

If you value you time and money, avoid this book.

Historically inept and propaganda based revisionist history.
ByM. D Robertson November 15, 2010
Format: Paperback
From the outset Quigley expediently ignores each and every historical and political fact that does not suit his obvious pro-Arab agenda. Ignoring the fact that a substantial and continuous Jewish presence has existed in the ancient Jewish homeland for over 3,000 years (with a Jewish majority in Jerusalem), he embarks upon a selective and revisionist address of San Remo, Versailles and the Palestine Mandate itself with a view to denigrating the state of Israel, its inception and continued existence within present borders.

This study is both historically inept and propaganda based, showing itself to be unashamedly supportive of the Islamic/Arab agenda of eradicating the Jewish state in what it sees as land that is 'forever Islamic'. It is lost upon the author that the Arab and Islamic world gave no credence to UN resolutions in 1948 when they rejected peace/partition and instead sought the genocide of the reborn Jewish state.

Citing the allegedly enforced expulsion of Arab refugees in 1948 the writer expediently overlooks that in 1948 there would not have been one single Arab refugee - not even one - had the Arab states not chosen to go to war in defiance of a United Nations resolution with the declared aim of pursuing the genocide the newly reborn State of Israel.

The Arab High Committee in 1948 publicly declaring, just 3 years after the Holocaust;- "The Arabs have taken into their own hands, the FINAL SOLUTION of the Jewish problem. The problem will be solved only in blood and fire. The Jews will be driven out."

The writer instead making a selective reference to isolated left wing individuals of his own leaning, while ignoring the considerable list of Arab leaders - including the Syrian PM of the day Haled al-Azm - who rubbish his remarks, while showing that the Jewish leadership indeed pleaded for the Arabs to stay. This as the Arab leadership encouraged their brethren to flee in order that they would not impede the intended massacre of the Jewish state, while also inciting them to return afterwards to share in the spoils.

The writer is oblivious to the statement of current PLO Chairman Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas) on the same refugee issue, who in March 1976 wrote in the official publication of the PLO (FaZastin al-Thawra) that "..The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians. .. . but, instead, they abandoned them, forced them to emigrate and to leave their homeland, imposed upon them a political and ideological blockade and threw them into prisons similar to the ghettos in which the Jews used to live in Eastern Europe..."

As to the simultaneous enforced expulsion of nearly one million Jews from Arab lands, the book gives such a wide berth, in much the same way that he ignores statements from Zahir Muhsein, executive committee member of the "Palestinian Liberation Organisation" who stated in the Dutch newspaper Trouw on 31st March 1977;-
"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct 'Palestinian people' to oppose Zionism."

Historically revisionist history and anti-Israeli propaganda, together with revisionism are the order of the day in a book that has an obvious agenda from the outset. Astute observers will be only too aware that for decades the Arab world has sought to eradicate the Jewish state. Having failed militarily the invention of new public relations themes or disinformation are becoming increasingly common. It sadly seems that re-writing history is now becoming more prominent.

Indeed, this study seems oblivious to the fact that it was only well into the 1970s that the Arabs themselves thought up the idea of basing their campaign on "Palestinian rights." Before that, they had a far more candid approach and demanded openly that the Jews be tossed into the sea. References are widely available.... but not in this book.

I would not give this book even one star if the option were available but would respectfully direct readers to the widely available response to John Quigley by Professor Louis Rene Beres and the 25 year study of Professor Howard Grief entitled "The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law".

Amazon.com: Customer reviews: The Case for Palestine: An International Law Perspective

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[P F Tinmore]

Why are you trying to make this more complicated than it is? This is how it went down in Palestine which was the same for all of the new states.
-------------------
The Treaty of Peace between the allied powers and Turkey officially ending World War I was signed in Lausanne, Switzerland, on 24 July 1923.121 Setting out the legal status of the territories detached from Turkey, the Treaty had the effect of law in Palestine, as it was extended to this country by an ordinance,122 on 6 August 1924.

The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the perspective of public international law. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British government pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine.”123 And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality.”124

Most of the post-World War I peace treaties embodied nationality provisions and the Treaty of Lausanne was no exception.125 It addressed the nationality of the inhabitants in the territories detached from Turkey in Articles 30-6. These articles replaced, with certain modifications, Articles 123-31 of the draft Treaty of Sèvres of 1920.126

Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel

Deflection.

An obscure opinion.

It is all footnoted.

So, post something different.

What does footnoting have to do with an opinion?

Copy and paste something else you don't understand and can't defend.

Here is something else to go over your head.

https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1045&context=mjil

You always seem to chose those who know as much as you do:

(Reviews on one of his books)

"International Law Perspective" Without International Law
ByNon August 8, 2011
Format: Paperback
As a student of law, I borrowed this book anticipating arguments about Palestinian statehood deeply founded in international law. I looked for references to key principles, decisions and treaties - to no avail. For a book that purports to give an "international law perspective" on the Israeli Palestinian conflict, this book contains remarkably little legal content, and rather too much dubious historical commentary. Seeing as it fails both as history and as a legal analysis, I'm left wondering whether this book has any merit at all.

If you value you time and money, avoid this book.

Historically inept and propaganda based revisionist history.
ByM. D Robertson November 15, 2010
Format: Paperback
From the outset Quigley expediently ignores each and every historical and political fact that does not suit his obvious pro-Arab agenda. Ignoring the fact that a substantial and continuous Jewish presence has existed in the ancient Jewish homeland for over 3,000 years (with a Jewish majority in Jerusalem), he embarks upon a selective and revisionist address of San Remo, Versailles and the Palestine Mandate itself with a view to denigrating the state of Israel, its inception and continued existence within present borders.

This study is both historically inept and propaganda based, showing itself to be unashamedly supportive of the Islamic/Arab agenda of eradicating the Jewish state in what it sees as land that is 'forever Islamic'. It is lost upon the author that the Arab and Islamic world gave no credence to UN resolutions in 1948 when they rejected peace/partition and instead sought the genocide of the reborn Jewish state.

Citing the allegedly enforced expulsion of Arab refugees in 1948 the writer expediently overlooks that in 1948 there would not have been one single Arab refugee - not even one - had the Arab states not chosen to go to war in defiance of a United Nations resolution with the declared aim of pursuing the genocide the newly reborn State of Israel.

The Arab High Committee in 1948 publicly declaring, just 3 years after the Holocaust;- "The Arabs have taken into their own hands, the FINAL SOLUTION of the Jewish problem. The problem will be solved only in blood and fire. The Jews will be driven out."

The writer instead making a selective reference to isolated left wing individuals of his own leaning, while ignoring the considerable list of Arab leaders - including the Syrian PM of the day Haled al-Azm - who rubbish his remarks, while showing that the Jewish leadership indeed pleaded for the Arabs to stay. This as the Arab leadership encouraged their brethren to flee in order that they would not impede the intended massacre of the Jewish state, while also inciting them to return afterwards to share in the spoils.

The writer is oblivious to the statement of current PLO Chairman Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas) on the same refugee issue, who in March 1976 wrote in the official publication of the PLO (FaZastin al-Thawra) that "..The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians. .. . but, instead, they abandoned them, forced them to emigrate and to leave their homeland, imposed upon them a political and ideological blockade and threw them into prisons similar to the ghettos in which the Jews used to live in Eastern Europe..."

As to the simultaneous enforced expulsion of nearly one million Jews from Arab lands, the book gives such a wide berth, in much the same way that he ignores statements from Zahir Muhsein, executive committee member of the "Palestinian Liberation Organisation" who stated in the Dutch newspaper Trouw on 31st March 1977;-
"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct 'Palestinian people' to oppose Zionism."

Historically revisionist history and anti-Israeli propaganda, together with revisionism are the order of the day in a book that has an obvious agenda from the outset. Astute observers will be only too aware that for decades the Arab world has sought to eradicate the Jewish state. Having failed militarily the invention of new public relations themes or disinformation are becoming increasingly common. It sadly seems that re-writing history is now becoming more prominent.

Indeed, this study seems oblivious to the fact that it was only well into the 1970s that the Arabs themselves thought up the idea of basing their campaign on "Palestinian rights." Before that, they had a far more candid approach and demanded openly that the Jews be tossed into the sea. References are widely available.... but not in this book.

I would not give this book even one star if the option were available but would respectfully direct readers to the widely available response to John Quigley by Professor Louis Rene Beres and the 25 year study of Professor Howard Grief entitled "The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law".

Amazon.com: Customer reviews: The Case for Palestine: An International Law Perspective

Oh jeese, the perspective of an Israeli shill

Citing the allegedly enforced expulsion of Arab refugees in 1948 the writer expediently overlooks that in 1948 there would not have been one single Arab refugee - not even one - had the Arab states not chosen to go to war in defiance of a United Nations resolution with the declared aim of pursuing the genocide the newly reborn State of Israel.

What this liar did not mention was that about 300,000 Palestinians became refugees before the Arab armies entered Palestine. Do you have something less biased?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Oh jeese, another lying Israeli shill.

 

[Hollie]

Oh jeese, another lying Israeli shill.

Oh Jesse, more whining over your hurt feelings.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Deflection.

An obscure opinion.

It is all footnoted.

So, post something different.

What does footnoting have to do with an opinion?

Copy and paste something else you don't understand and can't defend.

Here is something else to go over your head.

https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1045&context=mjil

You always seem to chose those who know as much as you do:

(Reviews on one of his books)


"International Law Perspective" Without International Law
ByNon August 8, 2011
Format: Paperback
As a student of law, I borrowed this book anticipating arguments about Palestinian statehood deeply founded in international law. I looked for references to key principles, decisions and treaties - to no avail. For a book that purports to give an "international law perspective" on the Israeli Palestinian conflict, this book contains remarkably little legal content, and rather too much dubious historical commentary. Seeing as it fails both as history and as a legal analysis, I'm left wondering whether this book has any merit at all.

If you value you time and money, avoid this book.

Historically inept and propaganda based revisionist history.
ByM. D Robertson November 15, 2010
Format: Paperback
From the outset Quigley expediently ignores each and every historical and political fact that does not suit his obvious pro-Arab agenda. Ignoring the fact that a substantial and continuous Jewish presence has existed in the ancient Jewish homeland for over 3,000 years (with a Jewish majority in Jerusalem), he embarks upon a selective and revisionist address of San Remo, Versailles and the Palestine Mandate itself with a view to denigrating the state of Israel, its inception and continued existence within present borders.

This study is both historically inept and propaganda based, showing itself to be unashamedly supportive of the Islamic/Arab agenda of eradicating the Jewish state in what it sees as land that is 'forever Islamic'. It is lost upon the author that the Arab and Islamic world gave no credence to UN resolutions in 1948 when they rejected peace/partition and instead sought the genocide of the reborn Jewish state.

Citing the allegedly enforced expulsion of Arab refugees in 1948 the writer expediently overlooks that in 1948 there would not have been one single Arab refugee - not even one - had the Arab states not chosen to go to war in defiance of a United Nations resolution with the declared aim of pursuing the genocide the newly reborn State of Israel.

The Arab High Committee in 1948 publicly declaring, just 3 years after the Holocaust;- "The Arabs have taken into their own hands, the FINAL SOLUTION of the Jewish problem. The problem will be solved only in blood and fire. The Jews will be driven out."

The writer instead making a selective reference to isolated left wing individuals of his own leaning, while ignoring the considerable list of Arab leaders - including the Syrian PM of the day Haled al-Azm - who rubbish his remarks, while showing that the Jewish leadership indeed pleaded for the Arabs to stay. This as the Arab leadership encouraged their brethren to flee in order that they would not impede the intended massacre of the Jewish state, while also inciting them to return afterwards to share in the spoils.

The writer is oblivious to the statement of current PLO Chairman Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas) on the same refugee issue, who in March 1976 wrote in the official publication of the PLO (FaZastin al-Thawra) that "..The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians. .. . but, instead, they abandoned them, forced them to emigrate and to leave their homeland, imposed upon them a political and ideological blockade and threw them into prisons similar to the ghettos in which the Jews used to live in Eastern Europe..."

As to the simultaneous enforced expulsion of nearly one million Jews from Arab lands, the book gives such a wide berth, in much the same way that he ignores statements from Zahir Muhsein, executive committee member of the "Palestinian Liberation Organisation" who stated in the Dutch newspaper Trouw on 31st March 1977;-
"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct 'Palestinian people' to oppose Zionism."

Historically revisionist history and anti-Israeli propaganda, together with revisionism are the order of the day in a book that has an obvious agenda from the outset. Astute observers will be only too aware that for decades the Arab world has sought to eradicate the Jewish state. Having failed militarily the invention of new public relations themes or disinformation are becoming increasingly common. It sadly seems that re-writing history is now becoming more prominent.

Indeed, this study seems oblivious to the fact that it was only well into the 1970s that the Arabs themselves thought up the idea of basing their campaign on "Palestinian rights." Before that, they had a far more candid approach and demanded openly that the Jews be tossed into the sea. References are widely available.... but not in this book.

I would not give this book even one star if the option were available but would respectfully direct readers to the widely available response to John Quigley by Professor Louis Rene Beres and the 25 year study of Professor Howard Grief entitled "The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law".

Amazon.com: Customer reviews: The Case for Palestine: An International Law Perspective

Oh jeese, the perspective of an Israeli shill

Citing the allegedly enforced expulsion of Arab refugees in 1948 the writer expediently overlooks that in 1948 there would not have been one single Arab refugee - not even one - had the Arab states not chosen to go to war in defiance of a United Nations resolution with the declared aim of pursuing the genocide the newly reborn State of Israel.

What this liar did not mention was that about 300,000 Palestinians became refugees before the Arab armies entered Palestine. Do you have something less biased?

Let us spell it out for you.

What happens when the UN Partitions the rest of the Mandate into two possible States?
The Jews accepted the proposal and the Arabs say no and start attacking the Jews. November 1947.

The Arab attacks on Jews continue until Israel declares Independence.

Then, many Arabs who lived in what became Israel continued to fight the Jews, but the Arab League and leaders, including the Jordanian soldiers, tell the Arab population to leave for about two weeks because then they will be able to destroy Israel and get rid of all the Jews once and for all.

Those Arabs who listened to their leaders left and the Arabs lost the war.

Which means that those who left hoping for the Jews to be murdered, were not going to be allowed to return in order to attempt to continue to murder Jews.

It is called WAR.

The Arabs actually declared it in 1920 and kept hoping for the Jews to be defeated and made to run away from their homeland. It did not work. So, the Arab league decided to put all of their armies together in a show of force in May 1948 and .........it did not work.

The Jews won.
The Arabs lost.

That is how wars go.

Many of the Arabs who were made to leave have been allowed to return, but all. Because they do not have a right to return especially if their goal is to continue to attack Jews and destroy Israel.

There are only about 20,000 of those left. In another 20 years, the refugee issue of "right of return" to Israel will be over and done with. Their descendants do not have ANY rights of return, any more than any other person who has been made a refugee anywhere else in the world.

The Muslims declared war on the Jews and Israel. THEY LOST.
Big time.
Not only once, but four times.

IT IS OVER !!!!

 

[P F Tinmore]

It is all footnoted.

So, post something different.

What does footnoting have to do with an opinion?

Copy and paste something else you don't understand and can't defend.

Here is something else to go over your head.

https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1045&context=mjil

You always seem to chose those who know as much as you do:

(Reviews on one of his books)


"International Law Perspective" Without International Law
ByNon August 8, 2011
Format: Paperback
As a student of law, I borrowed this book anticipating arguments about Palestinian statehood deeply founded in international law. I looked for references to key principles, decisions and treaties - to no avail. For a book that purports to give an "international law perspective" on the Israeli Palestinian conflict, this book contains remarkably little legal content, and rather too much dubious historical commentary. Seeing as it fails both as history and as a legal analysis, I'm left wondering whether this book has any merit at all.

If you value you time and money, avoid this book.

Historically inept and propaganda based revisionist history.
ByM. D Robertson November 15, 2010
Format: Paperback
From the outset Quigley expediently ignores each and every historical and political fact that does not suit his obvious pro-Arab agenda. Ignoring the fact that a substantial and continuous Jewish presence has existed in the ancient Jewish homeland for over 3,000 years (with a Jewish majority in Jerusalem), he embarks upon a selective and revisionist address of San Remo, Versailles and the Palestine Mandate itself with a view to denigrating the state of Israel, its inception and continued existence within present borders.

This study is both historically inept and propaganda based, showing itself to be unashamedly supportive of the Islamic/Arab agenda of eradicating the Jewish state in what it sees as land that is 'forever Islamic'. It is lost upon the author that the Arab and Islamic world gave no credence to UN resolutions in 1948 when they rejected peace/partition and instead sought the genocide of the reborn Jewish state.

Citing the allegedly enforced expulsion of Arab refugees in 1948 the writer expediently overlooks that in 1948 there would not have been one single Arab refugee - not even one - had the Arab states not chosen to go to war in defiance of a United Nations resolution with the declared aim of pursuing the genocide the newly reborn State of Israel.

The Arab High Committee in 1948 publicly declaring, just 3 years after the Holocaust;- "The Arabs have taken into their own hands, the FINAL SOLUTION of the Jewish problem. The problem will be solved only in blood and fire. The Jews will be driven out."

The writer instead making a selective reference to isolated left wing individuals of his own leaning, while ignoring the considerable list of Arab leaders - including the Syrian PM of the day Haled al-Azm - who rubbish his remarks, while showing that the Jewish leadership indeed pleaded for the Arabs to stay. This as the Arab leadership encouraged their brethren to flee in order that they would not impede the intended massacre of the Jewish state, while also inciting them to return afterwards to share in the spoils.

The writer is oblivious to the statement of current PLO Chairman Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas) on the same refugee issue, who in March 1976 wrote in the official publication of the PLO (FaZastin al-Thawra) that "..The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians. .. . but, instead, they abandoned them, forced them to emigrate and to leave their homeland, imposed upon them a political and ideological blockade and threw them into prisons similar to the ghettos in which the Jews used to live in Eastern Europe..."

As to the simultaneous enforced expulsion of nearly one million Jews from Arab lands, the book gives such a wide berth, in much the same way that he ignores statements from Zahir Muhsein, executive committee member of the "Palestinian Liberation Organisation" who stated in the Dutch newspaper Trouw on 31st March 1977;-
"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct 'Palestinian people' to oppose Zionism."

Historically revisionist history and anti-Israeli propaganda, together with revisionism are the order of the day in a book that has an obvious agenda from the outset. Astute observers will be only too aware that for decades the Arab world has sought to eradicate the Jewish state. Having failed militarily the invention of new public relations themes or disinformation are becoming increasingly common. It sadly seems that re-writing history is now becoming more prominent.

Indeed, this study seems oblivious to the fact that it was only well into the 1970s that the Arabs themselves thought up the idea of basing their campaign on "Palestinian rights." Before that, they had a far more candid approach and demanded openly that the Jews be tossed into the sea. References are widely available.... but not in this book.

I would not give this book even one star if the option were available but would respectfully direct readers to the widely available response to John Quigley by Professor Louis Rene Beres and the 25 year study of Professor Howard Grief entitled "The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law".

Amazon.com: Customer reviews: The Case for Palestine: An International Law Perspective

Oh jeese, the perspective of an Israeli shill

Citing the allegedly enforced expulsion of Arab refugees in 1948 the writer expediently overlooks that in 1948 there would not have been one single Arab refugee - not even one - had the Arab states not chosen to go to war in defiance of a United Nations resolution with the declared aim of pursuing the genocide the newly reborn State of Israel.

What this liar did not mention was that about 300,000 Palestinians became refugees before the Arab armies entered Palestine. Do you have something less biased?

Let us spell it out for you.

What happens when the UN Partitions the rest of the Mandate into two possible States?
The Jews accepted the proposal and the Arabs say no and start attacking the Jews. November 1947.

The Arab attacks on Jews continue until Israel declares Independence.

Then, many Arabs who lived in what became Israel continued to fight the Jews, but the Arab League and leaders, including the Jordanian soldiers, tell the Arab population to leave for about two weeks because then they will be able to destroy Israel and get rid of all the Jews once and for all.

Those Arabs who listened to their leaders left and the Arabs lost the war.

Which means that those who left hoping for the Jews to be murdered, were not going to be allowed to return in order to attempt to continue to murder Jews.

It is called WAR.

The Arabs actually declared it in 1920 and kept hoping for the Jews to be defeated and made to run away from their homeland. It did not work. So, the Arab league decided to put all of their armies together in a show of force in May 1948 and .........it did not work.

The Jews won.
The Arabs lost.

That is how wars go.

Many of the Arabs who were made to leave have been allowed to return, but all. Because they do not have a right to return especially if their goal is to continue to attack Jews and destroy Israel.

There are only about 20,000 of those left. In another 20 years, the refugee issue of "right of return" to Israel will be over and done with. Their descendants do not have ANY rights of return, any more than any other person who has been made a refugee anywhere else in the world.

The Muslims declared war on the Jews and Israel. THEY LOST.
Big time.
Not only once, but four times.

IT IS OVER !!!!

The Jews won.
The Arabs lost.

Israeli bullshit, of course. The fighting ended when the UN Security Council called for an armistice. An armistice halts fighting without declaring winners or losers. The armistice agreements were with Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt.

What did Lebanon lose?
What did Syria lose?
What did Jordan lose?
What did Egypt lose?

 

[P F Tinmore]

What happens when the UN Partitions the rest of the Mandate into two possible States?

The UN had no sovereignty over Palestine. They had no authority to divide Palestine.

 

[Hollie]

What happens when the UN Partitions the rest of the Mandate into two possible States?

The UN had no sovereignty over Palestine. They had no authority to divide Palestine.

The UN did not divide the geographic area of Palestine. Contrary to your silly notion that your invented "country of Pal'istan" existed (it did not), there was, therefore, no Arab-Islamist sovereignty.

Thanks for bringing up the same nonsensical arguments that have been addressed for you many times before.

 

[P F Tinmore]

What happens when the UN Partitions the rest of the Mandate into two possible States?

The UN had no sovereignty over Palestine. They had no authority to divide Palestine.

The UN did not divide the geographic area of Palestine. Contrary to your silly notion that your invented "country of Pal'istan" existed (it did not), there was, therefore, no Arab-Islamist sovereignty.

Thanks for bringing up the same nonsensical arguments that have been addressed for you many times before.

your silly notion that your invented "country of Pal'istan" existed (it did not),

Link?

 

[Shusha]

Why are you trying to make this more complicated than it is? This is how it went down in Palestine which was the same for all of the new states.

I'm not trying to make it complicated . I am illuminating the inconsistencies in your argument and showing how you hold Israel (read: Jews) to different standards than you hold others -- even to the extent of trying to make international law work differently for Jews.

The Treaty of Lausanne does not create States. The Treaty of Lausanne does not define the acquisition of territory for any States. The Treaty of Lausanne does not even name the States which arose in the ME after Turkey renounced that territory.

You have claimed that in order for a State to be created it needs to "acquire land". The extrapolation of that claim is that Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan successfully "acquired land". How did they do so? Through what instruments did they do so?

I am particularly interested in your argument concerning Jordan -- since it was removed from the territory once referred to as "Palestine". How did that happen?

 

[Hollie]

What happens when the UN Partitions the rest of the Mandate into two possible States?

The UN had no sovereignty over Palestine. They had no authority to divide Palestine.

The UN did not divide the geographic area of Palestine. Contrary to your silly notion that your invented "country of Pal'istan" existed (it did not), there was, therefore, no Arab-Islamist sovereignty.

Thanks for bringing up the same nonsensical arguments that have been addressed for you many times before.

your silly notion that your invented "country of Pal'istan" existed (it did not),

Link?

Link to what never existed?

Thanks for being befuddled about all the same issues that have been addressed for you multiple times across multiple threads.

 

[P F Tinmore]

You have claimed that in order for a State to be created it needs to "acquire land". The extrapolation of that claim is that Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan successfully "acquired land". How did they do so? Through what instruments did they do so?

Turkish land was released to them by the Treaty of Lausanne.

IOW, the land was acquired by treaty.

 

[Sixties Fan]

You have claimed that in order for a State to be created it needs to "acquire land". The extrapolation of that claim is that Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan successfully "acquired land". How did they do so? Through what instruments did they do so?

Turkish land was released to them by the Treaty of Lausanne.

IOW, the land was acquired by treaty.

Turkish land was released to whom? Make it clear.

Which treaty are you continuing to talk about?

 

[Shusha]

You have claimed that in order for a State to be created it needs to "acquire land". The extrapolation of that claim is that Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan successfully "acquired land". How did they do so? Through what instruments did they do so?

Turkish land was released to them by the Treaty of Lausanne.

IOW, the land was acquired by treaty.

AGAIN, the Treaty of Lausanne did not release land "to them". Turkey ceded that land unconditionally and that land's final status was placed in the hands of the Allied Powers under the Mandate system. But if you want to argue that the Treaty of Lausanne ceded the territory to specific future States ("them"), fine. Its your argument.

Which States? How do you know it was those States?