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

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh come on.

First, be specific... What rights do you think the Arabs had? And out of those right, which do think the Palestinians did not get.
The only rights mentioned were (i) civil and (ii) religious. These are the only rights to be specifically protected. I can't answer the question if you don't identify which rights you are discussing.

Second, in 1918 Palestine was not a self-governing political entity.

Where do they say that Palestinians were exempt of rights or that Palestine was not a country?

(COMMENT)

Palestine was not a district or political entity of its own under Ottoman Administration. The area (we call today Palestine) was secured by the Allied Forces in 1917 and it became a military Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA South) set up to replace the Ottoman administration. OETA South consisted of the Ottoman Sanjaks of Jerusalem, Nablus and Acre. The military administration was replaced by a British civilian administration in 1920 and the area of OETA South became the territory of the British Mandate of Palestine in 1923, with some border adjustments with Lebanon and Syria.

Most Respectfully,
R

The only rights mentioned were (i) civil and (ii) religious. These are the only rights to be specifically protected. I can't answer the question if you don't identify which rights you are discussing.​

Indeed that is what the foreigners tried to impose.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

On May 15, 1947 the UN appointed a committee, the UNSCOP, composed of representatives from eleven states. To make the committee more neutral, none of the Great Powers were represented.

It seems you missed what it was that they wanted to partition.

(QUESTION)

What was it they wanted to partition???

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

Nobody has posted anything to the contrary.

Wait. So you are saying you are personally unaware of any legal instruments which assign territory as an expression of the Jewish people's inherent and historical right to self-determination in a national homeland on their ancestral lands? Or are you saying you are aware of those legal instruments but deny their validity? Just for clarity's sake so I can properly respond.

 

[Shusha]

It seems apparent to me that Tinmore thinks the Arabs had rights to exclusive sovereignty.

Further, this encompasses and necessitates the idea that the Jewish people have NO right to sovereignty.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Nobody has posted anything to the contrary.

Wait. So you are saying you are personally unaware of any legal instruments which assign territory as an expression of the Jewish people's inherent and historical right to self-determination in a national homeland on their ancestral lands? Or are you saying you are aware of those legal instruments but deny their validity? Just for clarity's sake so I can properly respond.

Nope, I haven't seen anything.

 

[P F Tinmore]

It seems apparent to me that Tinmore thinks the Arabs had rights to exclusive sovereignty.

Further, this encompasses and necessitates the idea that the Jewish people have NO right to sovereignty.

The native Muslims, Christians, and Jews all had equal sovereignty.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Are you kidding me?

So, Palestine had a temporarily appointed administration. Where does it say that Palestine was not a country? What was it that the Mandate was assigned to?

(COMMENT)

ANSWER #1: Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and

• The Mandatory was selected to administer a territory to be called Palestine, with undetermined boundaries at that time.
​

THEN:

ANSWER #2: Actually, the Mandate for Palestine was open-ended. What the Mandate says --- is:​

Article 28

In the event of the termination of the mandate hereby conferred upon the Mandatory, the Council of the League of Nations shall make such arrangements as may be deemed necessary for safeguarding in perpetuity, under guarantee of the League, the rights secured by Articles 13 and 14, and shall use its influence for securing, under the guarantee of the League, that the Government of Palestine will fully honour the financial obligations legitimately incurred by the Administration of Palestine during the period of the mandate, including the rights of public servants to pensions or gratuities.​

Most Respectfully,
R

..to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine,​

Note that they did not say the territory of the Mandate.

Nor did it say the country or nation of Palestine, but the preamble defines what is meant by the territory of Palestine. You have been shown this time and time again and still deny the words exist. The mandate clearly states that the mandate of Palestine will be hereinafter called Palestine.

The order in council was in 1922. Palestine did not become a separate entity until 1924.

Of course they had to fudge the definition before Palestine legally existed.

This whole argument is a bunch of smoke.

So produce the treaty that states Palestine is a nation/state with a capital city and a leader free from the LoN mandate of Palestine ?

It is that easy to do if you are so sure of your claim. Not your usual link that contains the words " these are the borders of the mandate of Palestine, hereinafter called Palestine"

 

[Phoenall]

That leads us back to the '67 borders. They are the 1949 armistice lines that were specifically not the be political or territorial boundaries.

Since they were not really borders they did not change Palestine's existing international borders.

I'm not sure what you are arguing for here, then. That Palestine is one contiguous state from the border with Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon? And that this can not be changed? And that it should be under the sovereignty of Arab Muslims?

Here is a 1946 map of Palestine. Look in the legend for the border line then find that line on the map.

Where are those borders in 1949? Example:

Article V
1. The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the international boundary between the Lebanon and Palestine.

The Avalon Project : Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, March 23, 1949

Still there.

The arab muslims denied this plan so lost a lot of land they could have claimed in 1948. You ane them are crying over your ineptitude and arrogance in demanding all the land and getting nothing. The above map was a proposal and not set in stone borders. And the one you mention is the borders of the Mandate of Palestine with Lebanon as no state or nation of Palestine has ever existed.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This did not happen in 1924. In fact nothing happened in 1924.

Nor did it say the country or nation of Palestine, but the preamble defines what is meant by the territory of Palestine. You have been shown this time and time again and still deny the words exist. The mandate clearly states that the mandate of Palestine will be hereinafter called Palestine.

The order in council was in 1922. Palestine did not become a separate entity until 1924.

Of course they had to fudge the definition before Palestine legally existed.

This whole argument is a bunch of smoke.

(COMMENT)

On the activation of the Mandate for Palestine, the carve-out was established in Article 25. On 15 May, 1923, the Mandatory formally recognized the Emirate of Transjordan as a state under the leadership of Emir Abdullah.

The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in August, 1924, (although it doesn't mention Palestine specifically) finally normalized the international status of several territories under Mandates; including Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Palestine as former Ottoman territories situated outside the frontiers of Turkey, and administered under a Mandate entrusted to the Mandatory.

It neither makes, gives, or promises the Arab-Palestinian anything regarding independence or sovereignty.

Don't give an empowerment to Palestine that the Allied Powers and the League of Nations who wrote the Covenant, the San Remo Convention, the Palestine Order in Council, the Mandate for Palestine, and the Citizenship Order, etc. They understood what they wrote and they understood what they were obligated to do.

Most Respectfully,
R

Where do they say that Palestinians were exempt of rights or that Palestine was not a country?

In the surrender terms that you forget, and stop trying to use laws retrospectively unless you want to have the same done to you. Where does it mention Palestine as a country. nation or state ?

 

[Phoenall]

Prior to 67 Gaza was part of Egypt and the W. Bank was part of Jordan. Since that wasn't a part of " Palestine" before 67 maybe it shouldn't be a part of it now. <snip>

Finally we have a post that is staying on topic.

Fair enough, what's so sacred about the 1949 ceasefire lines? Perhaps we should address the Palestinian territory seized by Zionist Israel and occupied illegally since 1948?

It wasn't occupied illegally. The arab countries didn't accept the UN partition, and invaded immediately after Israel declared independence.

So if they didn't accept the partition, that area was not there's to begin with.

It seems you missed what it was that they wanted to partition.

As you have as the proper name for the area was Jewish Palestine, as opposed to trans Jordan that was arab Palestine. read the LoN minutes for the period 1917 to 1924 for the full explanation

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh come on.

First, be specific... What rights do you think the Arabs had? And out of those right, which do think the Palestinians did not get.
The only rights mentioned were (i) civil and (ii) religious. These are the only rights to be specifically protected. I can't answer the question if you don't identify which rights you are discussing.

Second, in 1918 Palestine was not a self-governing political entity.

Where do they say that Palestinians were exempt of rights or that Palestine was not a country?

(COMMENT)

Palestine was not a district or political entity of its own under Ottoman Administration. The area (we call today Palestine) was secured by the Allied Forces in 1917 and it became a military Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA South) set up to replace the Ottoman administration. OETA South consisted of the Ottoman Sanjaks of Jerusalem, Nablus and Acre. The military administration was replaced by a British civilian administration in 1920 and the area of OETA South became the territory of the British Mandate of Palestine in 1923, with some border adjustments with Lebanon and Syria.

Most Respectfully,
R

The only rights mentioned were (i) civil and (ii) religious. These are the only rights to be specifically protected. I can't answer the question if you don't identify which rights you are discussing.​

Indeed that is what the foreigners tried to impose.

What are you talking about, what did foreigners try to impose. Was it the civil and religious rights extant at the time, or was it future rights from 70 yours yet to be invented.

So what were these civil and religious rights contained in the LoN minutes ?

 

[Phoenall]

First, be specific... What rights do you think the Arabs had? And out of those right, which do think the Palestinians did not get.

It seems apparent to me that Tinmore thinks the Arabs had rights to exclusive sovereignty.

Nobody has posted anything to the contrary.

Apart from all the treaties and Mandate of Palestine that says your claims are a crock of shit. From 1917 the LoN ( sovereign land owners ) granted the Jews a portion of Ottoman land as their NATIONal home under extant international laws of the day.

Show where that is incorrect

 

[Phoenall]

Indeed, they just fell out of the sky like a gift from God.

Not at all . They just redefined themselves as a political expediency. As a test, please demonstrate the cultural or ethnic or political differentiation between "Palestinians" and Syrians, Jordanians and/or Lebanese prior to the early 1900's.

So they were already there but changed their name? But they were citizens of Palestine since 1925 because they already were living there.

There was no Lebanon, Syria, or Jordan. Before 1900 they were all the same place.

They were citizens of the mandate of Palestine, which is why they had British passports, British stamps and British money.


Actually before 1922 they were all the same place, the Ottoman empire

 

[Phoenall]

Nobody has posted anything to the contrary.

Wait. So you are saying you are personally unaware of any legal instruments which assign territory as an expression of the Jewish people's inherent and historical right to self-determination in a national homeland on their ancestral lands? Or are you saying you are aware of those legal instruments but deny their validity? Just for clarity's sake so I can properly respond.

Nope, I haven't seen anything.

Even though they have been posted on here thousands of times, and you have argued over single words in their texts.

 

[Phoenall]

It seems apparent to me that Tinmore thinks the Arabs had rights to exclusive sovereignty.

Further, this encompasses and necessitates the idea that the Jewish people have NO right to sovereignty.

The native Muslims, Christians, and Jews all had equal sovereignty.

Said who ? as that was not a right until just recently, in 1923 the Jews had sovereignty over Jewish Palestine, the arabs over arab Palestine. International treaty says this is so dated 1924

 

[RoccoR]

Phoenall, P F Tinmore, Shusha, et al,

I think you are talking about TWO different kinds of sovereignty.

It seems apparent to me that Tinmore thinks the Arabs had rights to exclusive sovereignty.

Further, this encompasses and necessitates the idea that the Jewish people have NO right to sovereignty.

The native Muslims, Christians, and Jews all had equal sovereignty.

Said who ? as that was not a right until just recently, in 1923 the Jews had sovereignty over Jewish Palestine, the arabs over arab Palestine. International treaty says this is so dated 1924

(COMMENT)

• Personal Sovereignty (sometimes called self-ownership or or individual autonomy) is a state of true personal freedom.

• Westphalian and/or Territorial sovereignty of a nation-state based over which no other external agents has control.

• An external political power that extends it practical and demonstrated Legal and Actual control over a specified territory
• Real Monarchy
• Political Sovereignty wherein the Government holds power by a legal system.
• Popular Sovereignty in which the citizenry establishes a government, and the power resides in the people.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

There was no Lebanon, Syria, or Jordan. Before 1900 they were all the same place.

Um. Yeah. Exactly. Bingo. They were the same place. There was no Lebanon. There was no Syria. There was no Jordan. There was no Palestine. There was no Israel.

So what, legally, gave Lebanon, and Syria, and Jordan the RIGHT to sovereignty over the territory they now hold? And in what way does that SAME right deny the rights to the Jewish people over sovereignty as well?

The people of the place, those who normally lived there, had sovereignty over their respective place.

Sovereignty did not apply to those who normally lived somewhere else.

Religion is not a factor.

But International treaties are, and they gave 22% of the sovereignty to the Jews. The same treaties expressly stated that the arab muslims wishing to remain as full citizens of the Jewish NATIONal home would do so as peaceful people. Any violent action would see them evicted from the state and the loss of their citizenship.

 

[Phoenall]

The problem is that Egypt has no interest in controlling Gaza. And Jordan has little interest in controlling the West Bank. And Israel has little interest in controlling either, other than to prevent its citizens from being killed. So, what do any of them, or the international community, do with that? Its a mess.

That leads us back to the '67 borders. They are the 1949 armistice lines that were specifically not the be political or territorial boundaries.

Since they were not really borders they did not change Palestine's existing international borders.

No borders in 1967, but there were two sets of armistice/ceasefire lines, so which one do you call the 67 borders

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, Phoenall, Shusha, et al,

The scope, the nature and the meaning of the Covenant (especially Article 22), San Remo Agreement, the Order in Council and the Mandate, belongs to the interpretation of the Allied Power and the Council to the League of Nations.

First, be specific... What rights do you think the Arabs had? And out of those right, which do think the Palestinians did not get.

It seems apparent to me that Tinmore thinks the Arabs had rights to exclusive sovereignty.

Nobody has posted anything to the contrary.

Apart from all the treaties and Mandate of Palestine that says your claims are a crock of shit. From 1917 the LoN ( sovereign land owners ) granted the Jews a portion of Ottoman land as their NATIONal home under extant international laws of the day.

Show where that is incorrect

From 1917 the LoN ( sovereign land owners )​

That is where your theory goes south. Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed sovereignty. They merely held the territories in trust on behalf of the inhabitants.

(COMMENT)

Your sentence is absolutely true. But I caution you not to make a leap of faith.

The Mandatory (UK) and the Council to the League of Nations, DID NOT WANT sovereignty. They had absolute control of the territory and the future of the territory, as the title and rights was passed from the surrendering Sovereign (via Turkey in Article 16) to the successor government established by the Allied Powers.

The Mandate is actually a derivative authority passed down to the Mandatory by the Council of the League of Nations.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

First, be specific... What rights do you think the Arabs had? And out of those right, which do think the Palestinians did not get.

It seems apparent to me that Tinmore thinks the Arabs had rights to exclusive sovereignty.

Nobody has posted anything to the contrary.

Apart from all the treaties and Mandate of Palestine that says your claims are a crock of shit. From 1917 the LoN ( sovereign land owners ) granted the Jews a portion of Ottoman land as their NATIONal home under extant international laws of the day.

Show where that is incorrect

From 1917 the LoN ( sovereign land owners )​

That is where your theory goes south. Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed sovereignty. They merely held the territories in trust on behalf of the inhabitants.

Sorry but when they signed the treaties with first the Ottomans and then the Turks that was claiming sovereignty under any international law you care to use. That is where your theory goes all to pieces, the treaties that were agreed and signed in 1917 giving over the land to the LoN as reparations of war ( war booty ).
If as you claim the LoN did not acquire sovereignty then they could not give the land to the arab muslims, making all those nations peoples stateless and the land free for all. This means that the Palestinians do not have a claim to any land and should leave Israel.

You lose again through stupid pig headedness