Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2

[P F Tinmore]

The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in August, 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine as a territory detached from Turkey and administered under a Mandate entrusted to His Majesty's Government.

There is nothing here or anywhere else in your post that says that Palestine was not a state.

I posted things that said it was.

 

[montelatici]

The Treaty of Lausanne, to which the World War I allies were party, more than once refers to Turkey's Arab territories (Iraq, Syria, and Palestine), all of which became Class A mandates as "states" that were "detached" from Turkey. The Treaty of Lausanne reflected an assumption that the Class A mandate territories, including Palestine, were "states." Under the League Covenant, the independence of these states was "provisionally recognized," and they were to be made independent in due course. The Class A mandates were states temporarily under the administration of an outside state.

 

[Hollie]

The Treaty of Lausanne, to which the World War I allies were party, more than once refers to Turkey's Arab territories (Iraq, Syria, and Palestine), all of which became Class A mandates as "states" that were "detached" from Turkey. The Treaty of Lausanne reflected an assumption that the Class A mandate territories, including Palestine, were "states." Under the League Covenant, the independence of these states was "provisionally recognized," and they were to be made independent in due course. The Class A mandates were states temporarily under the administration of an outside state.

Yet another desperate attempt at rewriting history.

"Turkey's Arab territories (Iraq, Syria, and Palestine), all of which became Class A mandates as "states" that were "detached" from Turkey."

Did you notice the terms Turkeys Arab territories [lets understand former territories].

Did you notice the term Class A mandates? You should have noticed that. It was in your cut and paste.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Who are the Palestinians?

Dr. Manal Fakhoury

 

[Hollie]

IDF on responsibility of Islamic terrorists

 

[P F Tinmore]

IDF on responsibility of Islamic terrorists

Thank you. Another Israeli crime. A police station is a civilian infrastructure.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is historically wrong.

Oh, yes I did.

I think you are incorrect here.

BTW, did you answer my questions someplace in all this?

(COMMENT)

I answered several questions. I cited your question and answered it. You just don't like the answer. In fact you just copied the answer back.

Article 3 of the Montevideo Convention fits hand-in-glove with the principle of self-determination. And on 15 May 1948, when Israel use the declarative process (suggested and recommended by the UN), the boundaries to which it held sovereignty over became Israel.
​

Pursuant to Montevideo Convention, Israel was declared and defended it on 15 May 1948. Israel is where ever it defends its sovereignty.

Most Respectfully,
R

Of course what you say does not hold to the law as much as what I say.

Palestine was a state by 1924 per the LoN.

The Montevideo Convention of 1933 states: “The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states.”[3] The International Court of Justice has held in the Genocide Convention case that it adheres to the declaratory view, in the sense that the failure to maintain effective control over territory does not extinguish the legal entity in the eyes of the United Nations.[4]

Sovereignty: two Competing Theories of State Recognition - William Worster - Exploring Geopolitics​

Also

ARTICLE 4

States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.

Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States​

And my previous post implies that Palestine is still there.

So, where does Israel get legitimacy in Palestine?

How can Israel claim borders on Palestinian territory?

(HISTORICAL RECORD)

REPORT

BY HIS BRITANNIC MAJESTY'S GOVERNMENT ON THE ADMINISTRATION UNDER MANDATE
OF PALESTINE AND TRANSJORDAN FOR THE YEAR 1924. 31 December 1924
The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in August, 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine as a territory detached from Turkey and administered under a Mandate entrusted to His Majesty's Government.

The terms of the Mandate had been approved in anticipation by the Council of the League of Nations in 1922, and the Mandate had been brought into operation by resolution of the Council in 1923. A first report on the administration of the territory, covering the period from July, 1920, to the end of 1923, was presented to the Permanent Mandates Commission of the League by His Majesty's Government, and was considered by the Commission at their session at Geneva in October, 1924. On their invitation, the High Commissioner for Palestine attended that session, and gave evidence, in answer to questions, extending over six sittings. The Report of the Commission was approved by the Council of the League and has been made public.

(COMMENT)

There is this constant misinterpretation on the impact the Treaty of Lausanne had and the intentions of the League of Nations. I do not know where you get this idea that something in 1924 affirmed a new state of Palestine. That is simply not the case and was never the intention of the league Members.

Israel declared independence in 1948, after the using the principle of self-determination. No matter what you might think, or however you want to spin and twist reality, the fact is, that Israel is a country with the competence of a state. They declared it and they defended it (more than once).

It is my opinion that it is the Israeli population’s right to self-determination which takes precedence over and above any claims of sovereignty the Hostile Arab Palestinians might submit.

BUT once more. Nothing in 1924 gave the former enemy population any authority for statehood or sovereignty that was renounced by the former sovereign power to the Allied Powers over the territory of Palestine as defined by the Allied Powers.

Most Respectfully,
R

The LoN called it a state. The Treaty of Lausanne considered it a state although indirectly with a blanket reference. It was called a state by other legal entities. The US considered it a state. The 1949 UN Armistice Agreements called it Palestine and referenced its international borders.

So, who has the authority to dismantle a state?

There was never a state to dismantle. It is you who has invented a "state of Pal'istan" where none has ever existed. I understand you're desperate to rewrite history and invent your own interpretations, but have you considered that your invented "country of Pal'istan" exists, as you have identified, by mere "indirect reference"?

I have land for sale in the "country of the Bible Belt". Make me an offer.

Unsubstantiated Israeli talking point.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Who are the Palestinians?

Remi Kanazi

 

[ForeverYoung436]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is historically wrong.

Oh, yes I did.

(COMMENT)

I answered several questions. I cited your question and answered it. You just don't like the answer. In fact you just copied the answer back.

Article 3 of the Montevideo Convention fits hand-in-glove with the principle of self-determination. And on 15 May 1948, when Israel use the declarative process (suggested and recommended by the UN), the boundaries to which it held sovereignty over became Israel.
​

Pursuant to Montevideo Convention, Israel was declared and defended it on 15 May 1948. Israel is where ever it defends its sovereignty.

Most Respectfully,
R

Of course what you say does not hold to the law as much as what I say.

Palestine was a state by 1924 per the LoN.

The Montevideo Convention of 1933 states: “The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states.”[3] The International Court of Justice has held in the Genocide Convention case that it adheres to the declaratory view, in the sense that the failure to maintain effective control over territory does not extinguish the legal entity in the eyes of the United Nations.[4]

Sovereignty: two Competing Theories of State Recognition - William Worster - Exploring Geopolitics​

Also

ARTICLE 4

States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.

Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States​

And my previous post implies that Palestine is still there.

So, where does Israel get legitimacy in Palestine?

How can Israel claim borders on Palestinian territory?

(HISTORICAL RECORD)

REPORT

BY HIS BRITANNIC MAJESTY'S GOVERNMENT ON THE ADMINISTRATION UNDER MANDATE
OF PALESTINE AND TRANSJORDAN FOR THE YEAR 1924. 31 December 1924
The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in August, 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine as a territory detached from Turkey and administered under a Mandate entrusted to His Majesty's Government.

The terms of the Mandate had been approved in anticipation by the Council of the League of Nations in 1922, and the Mandate had been brought into operation by resolution of the Council in 1923. A first report on the administration of the territory, covering the period from July, 1920, to the end of 1923, was presented to the Permanent Mandates Commission of the League by His Majesty's Government, and was considered by the Commission at their session at Geneva in October, 1924. On their invitation, the High Commissioner for Palestine attended that session, and gave evidence, in answer to questions, extending over six sittings. The Report of the Commission was approved by the Council of the League and has been made public.

(COMMENT)

There is this constant misinterpretation on the impact the Treaty of Lausanne had and the intentions of the League of Nations. I do not know where you get this idea that something in 1924 affirmed a new state of Palestine. That is simply not the case and was never the intention of the league Members.

Israel declared independence in 1948, after the using the principle of self-determination. No matter what you might think, or however you want to spin and twist reality, the fact is, that Israel is a country with the competence of a state. They declared it and they defended it (more than once).

It is my opinion that it is the Israeli population’s right to self-determination which takes precedence over and above any claims of sovereignty the Hostile Arab Palestinians might submit.

BUT once more. Nothing in 1924 gave the former enemy population any authority for statehood or sovereignty that was renounced by the former sovereign power to the Allied Powers over the territory of Palestine as defined by the Allied Powers.

Most Respectfully,
R

The LoN called it a state. The Treaty of Lausanne considered it a state although indirectly with a blanket reference. It was called a state by other legal entities. The US considered it a state. The 1949 UN Armistice Agreements called it Palestine and referenced its international borders.

So, who has the authority to dismantle a state?

There was never a state to dismantle. It is you who has invented a "state of Pal'istan" where none has ever existed. I understand you're desperate to rewrite history and invent your own interpretations, but have you considered that your invented "country of Pal'istan" exists, as you have identified, by mere "indirect reference"?

I have land for sale in the "country of the Bible Belt". Make me an offer.

Unsubstantiated Israeli talking point.

Palestine never existed as an independent state. It was the name of a territory or geographic location, like North America. It was not even mentioned in the Lausanne Treaty, or whatever it's called.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Palestine never existed as an independent state.

It doesn't have to. The people have the same rights with or without a state.

 

[Shusha]

A police station is a civilian infrastructure.

So interesting that Palestinian police officers and stations are always "civilians" and Israeli police officers are always combatants and fair game for stabbing.

 

[P F Tinmore]

A police station is a civilian infrastructure.

So interesting that Palestinian police officers and stations are always "civilians" and Israeli police officers are always combatants and fair game for stabbing.

I thought that police had no authority outside of their district.

 

[Shusha]

A police station is a civilian infrastructure.

So interesting that Palestinian police officers and stations are always "civilians" and Israeli police officers are always combatants and fair game for stabbing.

I thought that police had no authority outside of their district.

Relevance? Are police civilians or combatants? I don't really care so much which you choose, as long as you apply it consistently. (Though I do think international law is clear).

 

[P F Tinmore]

A police station is a civilian infrastructure.

So interesting that Palestinian police officers and stations are always "civilians" and Israeli police officers are always combatants and fair game for stabbing.

I thought that police had no authority outside of their district.

Relevance? Are police civilians or combatants? I don't really care so much which you choose, as long as you apply it consistently. (Though I do think international law is clear).

Police are civilians. However, they have no authority outside their own district. A cop from Cleveland cannot go to Detroit and start arresting people. He is just another guy with a gun.

 

[Hollie]

A police station is a civilian infrastructure.

So interesting that Palestinian police officers and stations are always "civilians" and Israeli police officers are always combatants and fair game for stabbing.

I thought that police had no authority outside of their district.

Relevance? Are police civilians or combatants? I don't really care so much which you choose, as long as you apply it consistently. (Though I do think international law is clear).

Police are civilians. However, they have no authority outside their own district. A cop from Cleveland cannot go to Detroit and start arresting people. He is just another guy with a gun.

.... and an Islamic terrorist attacking a civilian with a knife accepts the risk of becoming just another dead islamic terrorist.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, your analogy is almost right. The credentials of Law Enforcement Officers in the US is a matter of the venue and appointing authority. Usually, a City Police Officer is held to the city limits with exceptions; Township Constables within the township, County Sheriffs to the county, State LEO within the state; lastly, federal officers (with exceptions) to federal limits. And of course, there are Letters of Marque and Extra-judicial authorities.

But your use of this analogy is incorrect in the case. Totally incorrect.

Police are civilians. However, they have no authority outside their own district. A cop from Cleveland cannot go to Detroit and start arresting people. He is just another guy with a gun.

(AS A MATTER OF INTERST)

Federal Law

18 U.S. Code § 926C - Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified retired law enforcement officers

I thought you might find this interesting.

(COMMENT)

Inside the sovereign territory, there are protocols, but little in terms of enforcement limitation. In the case of the Gaza Strip, Israel exercises virtually no general law enforcement duties of authorities, with the exception of the Naval Blockade. However, the West Bank is an entirely different story. Under Article 43 of the Hague Regulation, Israel has the responsibility to establish public order and safety. Additionally, the venue is a mutually agreed upon jurisdiction that is internationally recognized:

• Area A (full civil and security control by the Palestinian Authority)

• Area B (Palestinian civil control and joint Israeli-Palestinian security control)

• Area C (full Israeli civil and security control)
​

In the Middle East, and especially when dealing with the lawless Arab Palestinians, nothing is ever as simple as it appears. The Arab Palestinians like to have it both ways. They like to say they are sovereign, yet then complain that Israel does perform the duties of an Occupying Power correctly. They say that their definition of "Palestine" is everything west of the Jordan River and Dead Sea. Yet they argue about boundaries of civil war combatants. They want peace but start civil confrontations.

In Areas "B" and "C" --- the Israeli Government determines what agencies are responsible for security controls; to include the establishment of barriers necessary to protect the interests of the State of Israel. That would not be a decision made by Arab Palestinians that provide material support or are active partys to Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

What a blowhard Rocco is. Resistance to occupation is not terrorism. If that were the case the French resistance and the Italian and Yugoslav partisans would have been prosecuted for terrorism after the war. Just shut your ignorant trap Rocco. You don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Hollie]

What a blowhard Rocco is. Resistance to occupation is not terrorism. If that were the case the French resistance and the Italian and Yugoslav partisans would have been prosecuted for terrorism after the war. Just shut your ignorant trap Rocco. You don't know what you are talking about.

It's comically tragic how the Islamic terrorist huggers use slogans and clichés to promote their fascist heroes. The Hamas charter is literally about offensive gee-had as a means to further Islamic doctrine. Well, sorry but once again, your propaganda is just fraudulent. There is every reason to believe that Islamics who commit the most horrendous mass murders are deeply religious, pious Moslems who derive inspiration for their acts from their religious perspectives.

We rarely read of any of the enablers and promoters of islamic terrorism being brought to justice by the islamist governments which support and shelter the terrorists. Is that because the enablers and promoters of islamic terrorism are enabled and promoted by islamist governments? That's a rhetorical question, BTW.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

I find it is important for the Arab Palestinians to attempt to draw an association between true patriots defending their homeland during a time of war --- and --- the Jihadist, Deadly Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgent, Radicalized Islamist, and Asymmetric Fighters as state and non-state actors in violation of Article 68 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

What a blowhard Rocco is. Resistance to occupation is not terrorism. If that were the case the French resistance and the Italian and Yugoslav partisans would have been prosecuted for terrorism after the war. Just shut your ignorant trap Rocco. You don't know what you are talking about.

(COMMENT)

Anytime one of you pro-Jihadist and Radical Islamic fighters tells me to "shut your ignorant trap," I get that Detective Columbo type feeling that I'm close to something (if not on target).

Oh, just one more thing... The next time one of you Radical Islamic Jihadist does something patriotic; let me know. I get confused between kidnapping and murder, bombing and hijacking, attacks on women and children, and other such criminal behaviors.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

montelatici, et al,

I find it is important for the Arab Palestinians to attempt to draw an association between true patriots defending their homeland during a time of war --- and --- the Jihadist, Deadly Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgent, Radicalized Islamist, and Asymmetric Fighters as state and non-state actors in violation of Article 68 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

What a blowhard Rocco is. Resistance to occupation is not terrorism. If that were the case the French resistance and the Italian and Yugoslav partisans would have been prosecuted for terrorism after the war. Just shut your ignorant trap Rocco. You don't know what you are talking about.

(COMMENT)

Anytime one of you pro-Jihadist and Radical Islamic fighters tells me to "shut your ignorant trap," I get that Detective Columbo type feeling that I'm close to something (if not on target).

Oh, just one more thing... The next time one of you Radical Islamic Jihadist does something patriotic; let me know. I get confused between kidnapping and murder, bombing and hijacking, attacks on women and children, and other such criminal behaviors.

Most Respectfully,
R

Oh gee, another slime the Palestinians post.