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

[Hollie]

You are just making things up. But that is par for the course for you. You have nothing to back up any of your assertions, just your fantasies garnered from Zionist propaganda. But you know that.

I can see you're angry and frustrated at having no rebuttal. Use your inadequacies as a way to seek to improve yourself.

 

[montelatici]

No, just pointing out that you have no support for your ridiculous assertions.

 

[Phoenall]

And as you are told everytime you ask the same question 1917, 1923, 1948, 1949, 1967 or don't you recognise those dates.

Now when did Palestine the nation legally acquire any territory

 

[Phoenall]

And as you are told everytime you ask the same question 1917, 1923, 1948, 1949, 1967 or don't you recognise those dates.

Now when did Palestine the nation legally acquire any territory

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Not quite.

Not at all, I never said sovereign. Interesting that the government of Palestine was to be handed over to the U.N. so that means an infrastructure of government existed to be passed on, had the Zionists not seceded.

Does this mean hat Israel stole the land from the UN?

(COMMENT)

You have to examine the entire timeline. The territory that is called the 1967 occupied Palestinian territory (oPt) was not taken from the Allied Powers or the Arab Palestinians.

• The West Bank was occupied by Israel from sovereign Jordanian territory.
• The Gaza Strip was occupied by Israel from Egyptian Military Governorship.

The original land outline in Part II Section B (GA Res-181) was, in coordination with the Successor Government, subject to Jewish Self-Determination on the termination of the Mandate [Chapter I- Article 1(2) of the CHarter] after completion of the Steps Preparatory to Independence.

Lands absorbed in 1949, were Armistice Arrangements pursuant to UN Mediation.

• In the case of the West Bank, the territory was delimited as Israel under the Treaty of 1994.
• In the case of the Gaza Strip, the territory was delimited as Israel under the Treaty of 1979.

Again, the Hostile Arab Palestinians declined to participate in a Peace Treaty following the Khartoum Resolution passed by the Arab League in the wake of the 1967 war is famous for the "Three Nos" articulated in the third paragraph: No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, and no negotiations with Israel.

Most Respectfully,
R

Lands absorbed in 1949, were Armistice Arrangements pursuant to UN Mediation.​

Not true. All of Palestine was still Palestine according to the armistice agreements.

Don't forget that Israel signed those agreements.

LINK ?

The Avalon Project : Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949
The Avalon Project : Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, March 23, 1949
The Avalon Project : Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, April 3, 1949
The Avalon Project : Israeli-Syrian General Armistice Agreement, July 20, 1949

READ THEM AGAQIN AND SEE THAT ISRAEL IS MENTIONED IN EVERYONE AS A SIGNATORY. WHO SIGNED FOR THE PALESTINIANS ?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Ah yessss... This is the ye olde'Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty question. We've been around this track a couple of time.

The territorialization of international system with the Munster and Osnabruck Treaties respectively, represents undoubtedly the unending legacy of the Peace of Westphalia. It suffices to think to Article 2 (1) of UN Charter which spells out the ‘sovereign equality’ of Member States, as the fundamental principle on which the UN has been built upon. Therefore, one can even argue that the international order, so far, is essentially a territorial order. The great number of territorial disputes (territorial and maritime), as well as the fact that they represent a significant part of all the international arbitral awards, confirms the existence of a true ‘territory obsession’.
SOURCE: Theories on Territorial Sovereignty: A Reappraisal

​

So, this time, I'd thought I'd put my Sharia (Islamic Law) & what little law Law knowledge, Skills and Abilities (KSAs) to work.

As far as the main features of the territory are concerned, it is generally recognized by the doctrine and consolidated practice that the territory must be:

(a) stable (permanence of the residing population),
(b) delimited (There exist certain States whose borders are not clearly limited in their entirety and nevertheless their existence is not put into question.)
(c) continuous (refers to the continuity of State’s territory).
​

As used here, it implies a state's lawful control over it's territory...

Which leads us back to the question that you always dance around.

When did Israel ever legally acquire any territory?

(COMMENT)

I've never really danced around this question. I just get the impression that you don't like the answer.

• The right of a State over a territory – implying the power to dispose of it – is an absolute right since it is opposable erga omnes and it is also concrete (real), for it refers to goods or things. In the case of under Mandate, the "TITLE and RIGHTS" transferred from the Ottoman Empire and Turkish Republic through Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne. In addition to the TITLE and Rights to the territory, the treaty also acknowledge the privilege of the Allied Powers to determine the future of the territory.

SO: The first transfer from the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic was Article 16, Treaty of Lausanne, to the Allied Powers.

SO: This second transfer came when the Allied Powers (having the Title and Rights) agreed to select His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine. The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power; EXCEPT as agreed upon by the Members of the League and explicitly defined by the Council of the League of Nations;.

SO: The third transfer was effected one the announcement of the termination of the Mandate and the withdrawal of the Mandatory Power. The successor to the Mandatory Power was announced by the UN in alignment with the adopted instructions from General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) as the UN Palestine Commission.

SO: The fourth transfer was effected when, during the period between November 1947 and May 1948, the Provisional Government and Jewish Agency worked to accomplish the Steps Preparatory to Independence and coordinate its intentions to Declare Independence immediately upon termination of the Mandate.
​

At the time of the Armistice Agreements in 1949, Israel (at the time of the cessation of hostilities) assumed control of territory abandoned by Hostile Arab Forces in flight or under close pursuit and contact --- up to the FEBA; as designated by the Armistice Commission and Mediator.

This does not include the acquisition of abandon Jordanian sovereign territory (West Bank) on 1 August 1988, falling into the only remaining power (Israel). However, unlike Jordan, Israel did not annex the territory.

Most Respectfully,
R​

SO: The first transfer from the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic was Article 16, Treaty of Lausanne, to the Allied Powers.​

However, neither the LoN nor the Mandate annexed or otherwise claimed title to that territory. They held it in trust for the inhabitants who were the citizens of Palestine.

So, the remainder of your chain of succession is invalid.

LINK ?


As the last time I looked the LoN took full claim to the sovereignty of the Ottoman empire and ruled it with proxies. Read the Mandate again where this is spelt out for even idiots like you to understand



The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate


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

ARTICLE 1.
The Mandatory shall have full powers of legislation and of administration, save as they may be limited by the terms of this mandate.

ART. 2.
The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.

ART. 7.
The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.

 

[Phoenall]

The only hostile forces were those of the Jewish terrorist colonizers. The native people were simply defending themselves from the European invaders.

The invading / colonizing Turks were not defending themselves.

What were the Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese squatters defending?

The Turks were long gone. There were no Egyptians, Syrians or Lebanese, they were in Egypt, Syria and Lebanon respectively.

The invading / colonizing Turks were long gone in the early 1920's.

The invading / colonizing Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese squatters never left until they were pushed aside by the invading Arab-Moslem armies much later.

There were no colonizing Egyptians, Syrians or Lebanese. The only invaders, colonizers and squatters were the Europeans.

Then were did the arab muslims come from, if they were indigenous then they would be Jewish muslims ?

 

[Phoenall]

No, just pointing out that you have no support for your ridiculous assertions.

Apart from recorded history that says the same thing

 

[Hollie]

No, just pointing out that you have no support for your ridiculous assertions.

Your ignorance of history is a poor excuse for your bankrupt claims.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, that has little to do with reality.

Nearly everyone agrees that there are (at least) the five basic modes for the Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty; one of which is known as "cessation." This can go in either direction (acquisition of divestiture).

By signing the treaty, the Allied Powers agreed to the expression and contents. The variant here is that the Allied Powers intended (once the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic were out of the equation) that (in some form and at sometime in the future) all the inhabitants would have the opportunity to establish self-governing institutions (self-determination). The territory we call today as the "occupied Palestinian territories" (oPt) come to exist as a political subdivision of its own based on the divestiture by the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic (the undisputed sovereign for the eight centuries previous.

While you may disagree, in the practical sense, a claim to sovereignty based not upon some particular act or title such as a treaty of cession but merely upon continued display of authority, involves two elements each of which must be shown to exist:

• The intention and will to act as a sovereign,
• The actual exercise or display of such authority.
​

SO: The first transfer from the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic was Article 16, Treaty of Lausanne, to the Allied Powers.​

​

However, neither the LoN nor the Mandate annexed or otherwise claimed title to that territory. They held it in trust for the inhabitants who were the citizens of Palestine.

So, the remainder of your chain of succession is invalid.

(COMMENT)

It does not matter what was annexed or not, the fact of the matter is, that just like the Armistice of Mudros, the Treaty of Sevres, and the Treaty of Lausanne, it is called the Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty by "cession."

"When a state transfers its territory to another state, acquisition by cession takes place in favour of such later state. The cession of territory may be voluntary or maybe under compulsion as a result of war. The act of cession maybe even in the nature of a gift, sale, exchange or lease. Cession is the transfer of territory usually by treaty from one state to another."​

It is NOT so dissimilar to when Jordan cut all ties with West Bank. That only left Israel as the remaining government in place. The is similar to Acquisition by Occupation; when West Bank territory is not under the authority of any other state, a state can establish its sovereignty over such territory by occupation; having been abandoned by the previous sovereignty of the Hashemite Kingdom.

But a simple insistence, by the Arab Palestinians, of the rights of self-determination, independence and sovereignty --- or ---- an intention to render the control over the territory is not sufficient. There must be an actual display of authority.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

No, just pointing out that you have no support for your ridiculous assertions.

Your ignorance of history is a poor excuse for your bankrupt claims.

I make no claims, I just state officially reported facts.

As reported by the UN as part of the Resolutions that partitioned Palestine in Resolution A 364:

"b)IMMIGRATION AND NATURAL INCREASE

15. These changes in the population have been brought about by two forces: natural increase and immigration. The great increase in the Jewish population is due in the main to immigration. From 1920 to 1946, the total number of recorded Jewish immigrants into Palestine was about 376,000, or an average of over 8,000 per year. The flow has not been regular, however, being fairly high in 1924 to 1926, falling in the next few years (there was a net emigration in 1927) and rising to even higher levels between 1933 and 1936 as a result of the Nazi persecution in Europe. Between the census year of 1931 and the year 1936, the proportion of Jews to the total population rose from 18 per cent to nearly 30 per cent.

16. The Arab population has increased almost entirely as a result of an excess of births over deaths."

A/364 of 3 September 1947

Projecting does not change the fact that you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Hollie]

No, just pointing out that you have no support for your ridiculous assertions.

Your ignorance of history is a poor excuse for your bankrupt claims.

I make no claims, I just state officially reported facts.

As reported by the UN as part of the Resolutions that partitioned Palestine in Resolution A 364:

"b)IMMIGRATION AND NATURAL INCREASE

15. These changes in the population have been brought about by two forces: natural increase and immigration. The great increase in the Jewish population is due in the main to immigration. From 1920 to 1946, the total number of recorded Jewish immigrants into Palestine was about 376,000, or an average of over 8,000 per year. The flow has not been regular, however, being fairly high in 1924 to 1926, falling in the next few years (there was a net emigration in 1927) and rising to even higher levels between 1933 and 1936 as a result of the Nazi persecution in Europe. Between the census year of 1931 and the year 1936, the proportion of Jews to the total population rose from 18 per cent to nearly 30 per cent.

16. The Arab population has increased almost entirely as a result of an excess of births over deaths."

A/364 of 3 September 1947

Projecting does not change the fact that you don't know what you are talking about.

Spamming this thread and others with the same cutting and pasting suggests you're immune to learning.

Focus. Who invited the invading / colonizing Turks?

Who invited the invading / colonizing Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese squatters?

 

[montelatici]

Presenting facts versus your blabber. No contest.

The Turks were welcomed by the Christian and Muslim inhabitantsof Palestine to rid them of the Mamluk (Christian slaves, converts to Islam) rulers. The Turks were not settler colonists, just rulers, like the Mamluks before them.

 

[Hollie]

Presenting facts versus your blabber. No contest.

The Turks were welcomed by the Christian and Muslim inhabitantsof Palestine to rid them of the Mamluk (Christian slaves, converts to Islam) rulers. The Turks were not settler colonists, just rulers, like the Mamluks before them.

The Turk invaders/colonists were welcomed?

Consider appending "..... because I say so" to your islamo-commandments.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, that has little to do with reality.

Nearly everyone agrees that there are (at least) the five basic modes for the Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty; one of which is known as "cessation." This can go in either direction (acquisition of divestiture).

By signing the treaty, the Allied Powers agreed to the expression and contents. The variant here is that the Allied Powers intended (once the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic were out of the equation) that (in some form and at sometime in the future) all the inhabitants would have the opportunity to establish self-governing institutions (self-determination). The territory we call today as the "occupied Palestinian territories" (oPt) come to exist as a political subdivision of its own based on the divestiture by the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic (the undisputed sovereign for the eight centuries previous.

While you may disagree, in the practical sense, a claim to sovereignty based not upon some particular act or title such as a treaty of cession but merely upon continued display of authority, involves two elements each of which must be shown to exist:

• The intention and will to act as a sovereign,
• The actual exercise or display of such authority.
​

SO: The first transfer from the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic was Article 16, Treaty of Lausanne, to the Allied Powers.​

​

However, neither the LoN nor the Mandate annexed or otherwise claimed title to that territory. They held it in trust for the inhabitants who were the citizens of Palestine.

So, the remainder of your chain of succession is invalid.

(COMMENT)

It does not matter what was annexed or not, the fact of the matter is, that just like the Armistice of Mudros, the Treaty of Sevres, and the Treaty of Lausanne, it is called the Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty by "cession."

"When a state transfers its territory to another state, acquisition by cession takes place in favour of such later state. The cession of territory may be voluntary or maybe under compulsion as a result of war. The act of cession maybe even in the nature of a gift, sale, exchange or lease. Cession is the transfer of territory usually by treaty from one state to another."​

It is NOT so dissimilar to when Jordan cut all ties with West Bank. That only left Israel as the remaining government in place. The is similar to Acquisition by Occupation; when West Bank territory is not under the authority of any other state, a state can establish its sovereignty over such territory by occupation; having been abandoned by the previous sovereignty of the Hashemite Kingdom.

But a simple insistence, by the Arab Palestinians, of the rights of self-determination, independence and sovereignty --- or ---- an intention to render the control over the territory is not sufficient. There must be an actual display of authority.

Most Respectfully,
R

You keep skipping over the most important part. Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed title or sovereignty over that territory.

They held it in trust until the inhabitants could stand alone. However, Britain violated the LoN Covenant and prevented that from happening.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

NO, you keep ignoring the most important part.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, that has little to do with reality.

Nearly everyone agrees that there are (at least) the five basic modes for the Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty; one of which is known as "cessation." This can go in either direction (acquisition of divestiture).

By signing the treaty, the Allied Powers agreed to the expression and contents. The variant here is that the Allied Powers intended (once the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic were out of the equation) that (in some form and at sometime in the future) all the inhabitants would have the opportunity to establish self-governing institutions (self-determination). The territory we call today as the "occupied Palestinian territories" (oPt) come to exist as a political subdivision of its own based on the divestiture by the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic (the undisputed sovereign for the eight centuries previous.

While you may disagree, in the practical sense, a claim to sovereignty based not upon some particular act or title such as a treaty of cession but merely upon continued display of authority, involves two elements each of which must be shown to exist:

• The intention and will to act as a sovereign,
• The actual exercise or display of such authority.
​

SO: The first transfer from the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic was Article 16, Treaty of Lausanne, to the Allied Powers.​

​

However, neither the LoN nor the Mandate annexed or otherwise claimed title to that territory. They held it in trust for the inhabitants who were the citizens of Palestine.

So, the remainder of your chain of succession is invalid.

(COMMENT)

It does not matter what was annexed or not, the fact of the matter is, that just like the Armistice of Mudros, the Treaty of Sevres, and the Treaty of Lausanne, it is called the Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty by "cession."

"When a state transfers its territory to another state, acquisition by cession takes place in favour of such later state. The cession of territory may be voluntary or maybe under compulsion as a result of war. The act of cession maybe even in the nature of a gift, sale, exchange or lease. Cession is the transfer of territory usually by treaty from one state to another."​

It is NOT so dissimilar to when Jordan cut all ties with West Bank. That only left Israel as the remaining government in place. The is similar to Acquisition by Occupation; when West Bank territory is not under the authority of any other state, a state can establish its sovereignty over such territory by occupation; having been abandoned by the previous sovereignty of the Hashemite Kingdom.

But a simple insistence, by the Arab Palestinians, of the rights of self-determination, independence and sovereignty --- or ---- an intention to render the control over the territory is not sufficient. There must be an actual display of authority.

Most Respectfully,
R

You keep skipping over the most important part. Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed title or sovereignty over that territory.

They held it in trust until the inhabitants could stand alone. However, Britain violated the LoN Covenant and prevented that from happening.

(COMMENT)

The "LoN nor the Mandate claimed title or sovereignty over that territory," it was granted to the Allied Powers as a collective when they signed the treaty.

The concept is embedded in the idea that a power can gain sovereignty or lose sovereignty.

IN a "cession of territory" TWO things generally happen. In the case of the territory outside Turkey, the act of cession was compulsion (Article 16) as a result of a conflict outcome. The Allied Powers, and the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic accept the terms and conditions upon signature and ratification.

As far as the Covenant goes, the Arabs of Palestine --- even if they are the "certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire (which is by no means clear)," have yet to demonstrate that they are capable to "stand alone." They have a hard enough time just figuring-out who represents them. And, there is nothing in the Covenant that prevents the Allied Powers from determining "the future of these territories;" in accordance with the treaty and at the discretion of the Allied Powers.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

Presenting facts versus your blabber. No contest.

The Turks were welcomed by the Christian and Muslim inhabitantsof Palestine to rid them of the Mamluk (Christian slaves, converts to Islam) rulers. The Turks were not settler colonists, just rulers, like the Mamluks before them.

The Turk invaders/colonists were welcomed?

Consider appending "..... because I say so" to your islamo-commandments.

It just historical fact, something you know little about. You are totally confused as to who ruled when and where. LOL

The Mamluks were not well-liked as rulers, so the Muslim and Christians of Palestine welcomed the Ottoman Turks.

".......Marj Dabiq army passed quickly into the possession of the Ottomans whose advent was in many places welcomed as meaning deliverance from the Mamluks..."

A History of the Crusades: The fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, edited by Harry W. Hazard

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, that has little to do with reality.

Nearly everyone agrees that there are (at least) the five basic modes for the Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty; one of which is known as "cessation." This can go in either direction (acquisition of divestiture).

By signing the treaty, the Allied Powers agreed to the expression and contents. The variant here is that the Allied Powers intended (once the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic were out of the equation) that (in some form and at sometime in the future) all the inhabitants would have the opportunity to establish self-governing institutions (self-determination). The territory we call today as the "occupied Palestinian territories" (oPt) come to exist as a political subdivision of its own based on the divestiture by the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic (the undisputed sovereign for the eight centuries previous.

While you may disagree, in the practical sense, a claim to sovereignty based not upon some particular act or title such as a treaty of cession but merely upon continued display of authority, involves two elements each of which must be shown to exist:

• The intention and will to act as a sovereign,
• The actual exercise or display of such authority.
​

SO: The first transfer from the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic was Article 16, Treaty of Lausanne, to the Allied Powers.​

​

However, neither the LoN nor the Mandate annexed or otherwise claimed title to that territory. They held it in trust for the inhabitants who were the citizens of Palestine.

So, the remainder of your chain of succession is invalid.

(COMMENT)

It does not matter what was annexed or not, the fact of the matter is, that just like the Armistice of Mudros, the Treaty of Sevres, and the Treaty of Lausanne, it is called the Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty by "cession."

"When a state transfers its territory to another state, acquisition by cession takes place in favour of such later state. The cession of territory may be voluntary or maybe under compulsion as a result of war. The act of cession maybe even in the nature of a gift, sale, exchange or lease. Cession is the transfer of territory usually by treaty from one state to another."​

It is NOT so dissimilar to when Jordan cut all ties with West Bank. That only left Israel as the remaining government in place. The is similar to Acquisition by Occupation; when West Bank territory is not under the authority of any other state, a state can establish its sovereignty over such territory by occupation; having been abandoned by the previous sovereignty of the Hashemite Kingdom.

But a simple insistence, by the Arab Palestinians, of the rights of self-determination, independence and sovereignty --- or ---- an intention to render the control over the territory is not sufficient. There must be an actual display of authority.

Most Respectfully,
R

You keep skipping over the most important part. Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed title or sovereignty over that territory.

They held it in trust until the inhabitants could stand alone. However, Britain violated the LoN Covenant and prevented that from happening.

By signing the treaties that is exactly what they did. You really need to stop projecting islamonazi talking points that don't meet with the facts.

The mandatory held the land in trust for the indigenous inhabitants to show they were able to stand on their own and show free determination.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

NO, you keep ignoring the most important part.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, that has little to do with reality.

Nearly everyone agrees that there are (at least) the five basic modes for the Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty; one of which is known as "cessation." This can go in either direction (acquisition of divestiture).

By signing the treaty, the Allied Powers agreed to the expression and contents. The variant here is that the Allied Powers intended (once the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic were out of the equation) that (in some form and at sometime in the future) all the inhabitants would have the opportunity to establish self-governing institutions (self-determination). The territory we call today as the "occupied Palestinian territories" (oPt) come to exist as a political subdivision of its own based on the divestiture by the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic (the undisputed sovereign for the eight centuries previous.

While you may disagree, in the practical sense, a claim to sovereignty based not upon some particular act or title such as a treaty of cession but merely upon continued display of authority, involves two elements each of which must be shown to exist:

• The intention and will to act as a sovereign,
• The actual exercise or display of such authority.
​

SO: The first transfer from the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic was Article 16, Treaty of Lausanne, to the Allied Powers.​

​

However, neither the LoN nor the Mandate annexed or otherwise claimed title to that territory. They held it in trust for the inhabitants who were the citizens of Palestine.

So, the remainder of your chain of succession is invalid.

(COMMENT)

It does not matter what was annexed or not, the fact of the matter is, that just like the Armistice of Mudros, the Treaty of Sevres, and the Treaty of Lausanne, it is called the Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty by "cession."

"When a state transfers its territory to another state, acquisition by cession takes place in favour of such later state. The cession of territory may be voluntary or maybe under compulsion as a result of war. The act of cession maybe even in the nature of a gift, sale, exchange or lease. Cession is the transfer of territory usually by treaty from one state to another."​

It is NOT so dissimilar to when Jordan cut all ties with West Bank. That only left Israel as the remaining government in place. The is similar to Acquisition by Occupation; when West Bank territory is not under the authority of any other state, a state can establish its sovereignty over such territory by occupation; having been abandoned by the previous sovereignty of the Hashemite Kingdom.

But a simple insistence, by the Arab Palestinians, of the rights of self-determination, independence and sovereignty --- or ---- an intention to render the control over the territory is not sufficient. There must be an actual display of authority.

Most Respectfully,
R

You keep skipping over the most important part. Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed title or sovereignty over that territory.

They held it in trust until the inhabitants could stand alone. However, Britain violated the LoN Covenant and prevented that from happening.

(COMMENT)

The "LoN nor the Mandate claimed title or sovereignty over that territory," it was granted to the Allied Powers as a collective when they signed the treaty.

The concept is embedded in the idea that a power can gain sovereignty or lose sovereignty.

IN a "cession of territory" TWO things generally happen. In the case of the territory outside Turkey, the act of cession was compulsion (Article 16) as a result of a conflict outcome. The Allied Powers, and the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic accept the terms and conditions upon signature and ratification.

As far as the Covenant goes, the Arabs of Palestine --- even if they are the "certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire (which is by no means clear)," have yet to demonstrate that they are capable to "stand alone." They have a hard enough time just figuring-out who represents them. And, there is nothing in the Covenant that prevents the Allied Powers from determining "the future of these territories;" in accordance with the treaty and at the discretion of the Allied Powers.

Most Respectfully,
R

have yet to demonstrate that they are capable to "stand alone."​

Indeed, it is called illegal external interference.

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

NO, you keep ignoring the most important part.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, that has little to do with reality.

Nearly everyone agrees that there are (at least) the five basic modes for the Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty; one of which is known as "cessation." This can go in either direction (acquisition of divestiture).

By signing the treaty, the Allied Powers agreed to the expression and contents. The variant here is that the Allied Powers intended (once the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic were out of the equation) that (in some form and at sometime in the future) all the inhabitants would have the opportunity to establish self-governing institutions (self-determination). The territory we call today as the "occupied Palestinian territories" (oPt) come to exist as a political subdivision of its own based on the divestiture by the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic (the undisputed sovereign for the eight centuries previous.

While you may disagree, in the practical sense, a claim to sovereignty based not upon some particular act or title such as a treaty of cession but merely upon continued display of authority, involves two elements each of which must be shown to exist:

• The intention and will to act as a sovereign,
• The actual exercise or display of such authority.
​

SO: The first transfer from the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic was Article 16, Treaty of Lausanne, to the Allied Powers.​

​

However, neither the LoN nor the Mandate annexed or otherwise claimed title to that territory. They held it in trust for the inhabitants who were the citizens of Palestine.

So, the remainder of your chain of succession is invalid.

(COMMENT)

It does not matter what was annexed or not, the fact of the matter is, that just like the Armistice of Mudros, the Treaty of Sevres, and the Treaty of Lausanne, it is called the Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty by "cession."

"When a state transfers its territory to another state, acquisition by cession takes place in favour of such later state. The cession of territory may be voluntary or maybe under compulsion as a result of war. The act of cession maybe even in the nature of a gift, sale, exchange or lease. Cession is the transfer of territory usually by treaty from one state to another."​

It is NOT so dissimilar to when Jordan cut all ties with West Bank. That only left Israel as the remaining government in place. The is similar to Acquisition by Occupation; when West Bank territory is not under the authority of any other state, a state can establish its sovereignty over such territory by occupation; having been abandoned by the previous sovereignty of the Hashemite Kingdom.

But a simple insistence, by the Arab Palestinians, of the rights of self-determination, independence and sovereignty --- or ---- an intention to render the control over the territory is not sufficient. There must be an actual display of authority.

Most Respectfully,
R

You keep skipping over the most important part. Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed title or sovereignty over that territory.

They held it in trust until the inhabitants could stand alone. However, Britain violated the LoN Covenant and prevented that from happening.

(COMMENT)

The "LoN nor the Mandate claimed title or sovereignty over that territory," it was granted to the Allied Powers as a collective when they signed the treaty.

The concept is embedded in the idea that a power can gain sovereignty or lose sovereignty.

IN a "cession of territory" TWO things generally happen. In the case of the territory outside Turkey, the act of cession was compulsion (Article 16) as a result of a conflict outcome. The Allied Powers, and the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic accept the terms and conditions upon signature and ratification.

As far as the Covenant goes, the Arabs of Palestine --- even if they are the "certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire (which is by no means clear)," have yet to demonstrate that they are capable to "stand alone." They have a hard enough time just figuring-out who represents them. And, there is nothing in the Covenant that prevents the Allied Powers from determining "the future of these territories;" in accordance with the treaty and at the discretion of the Allied Powers.

Most Respectfully,
R

have yet to demonstrate that they are capable to "stand alone."​

Indeed, it is called illegal external interference.

Indeed, it's called 'Pal'istanian' Welfare Syndrome.