Who Are The Palestinians?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mindful said:
The Ethnic Cleansing of Jesus.


The birth and life of Jesus has been hijacked by the Palestinian movement, which seeks to portray Jesus as a Palestinian, writes this Noahide Christian. This effort is often referred to as Christian Palestinianism.

The Ethnic Cleansing of Jesus - Op-Eds - Arutz Sheva
Click to expand...
The maps in the back of my Bible call the place Palestine. Preachers call the place Palestine in their sermons.:confused-84:
 
P F Tinmore said:
Mindful said:
The Ethnic Cleansing of Jesus.


The birth and life of Jesus has been hijacked by the Palestinian movement, which seeks to portray Jesus as a Palestinian, writes this Noahide Christian. This effort is often referred to as Christian Palestinianism.

The Ethnic Cleansing of Jesus - Op-Eds - Arutz Sheva
Click to expand...
The maps in the back of my Bible call the place Palestine. Preachers call the place Palestine in their sermons.:confused-84:
Click to expand...


Yes but not the nation of Palestine.

Maps call the Gobi the Gobi but it does not make it a nation
 
P F Tinmore said:
Mindful said:
The Ethnic Cleansing of Jesus.


The birth and life of Jesus has been hijacked by the Palestinian movement, which seeks to portray Jesus as a Palestinian, writes this Noahide Christian. This effort is often referred to as Christian Palestinianism.

The Ethnic Cleansing of Jesus - Op-Eds - Arutz Sheva
Click to expand...
The maps in the back of my Bible call the place Palestine. Preachers call the place Palestine in their sermons.:confused-84:
Click to expand...

I don't know how many times we've explained how that name came about.
 
Mindful, P F Tinmore, et al,

It is merely a territorial reference name; ---- its meaning buried in the context of the historical association.

Mindful said:
P F Tinmore said:
Mindful said:
The Ethnic Cleansing of Jesus.


The birth and life of Jesus has been hijacked by the Palestinian movement, which seeks to portray Jesus as a Palestinian, writes this Noahide Christian. This effort is often referred to as Christian Palestinianism.

The Ethnic Cleansing of Jesus - Op-Eds - Arutz Sheva
Click to expand...
The maps in the back of my Bible call the place Palestine. Preachers call the place Palestine in their sermons.:confused-84:
Click to expand...

I don't know how many times we've explained how that name came about.
Click to expand...
(COMMENT)

The entire basis of the discussion is about the historical connection established. The question of --- "Who are the Palestinians" --- is an argument that has little or no bearing on the issues of the day. Who they are today, is defined by what they manage to control today (which is a deeper question - that may have an answer that they are not proud of). In the 20th century, we've seen two dozen Empires and Dynasties change; one of which was the Ottoman Empire --- the origins of which can be traced back to the late 11th century and the Turkic Emirates of Anatolian Beyliks. At the turn of the 19th-to-20th Century, much of what we call "Palestine" today was under the administration of the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem --- a Sanjak within the Syria Vilayet [(Damsacus) of the Ottoman Empire]. There was no political subdivision known as "Palestine" with the Ottoman Empire --- not for 500 years. "Palestine" was a "regional" name denoting the administrative divisions covered by the Sanjak of Nablus, Sanjak of Acre, and the Mutasarrfate of Jerusalem (Special Ottoman District). (Note: This is historically why today, both the State of Israel (circa 1967) and the State of Palestine (circa 1988) each claim Jerusalem as their respective capitals.)

Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem

The Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem (Ottoman Turkish: Kudüs-i Şerif Mutasarrıflığı; Arabic: متصرفية القدس الشريف‎), also known as the Sanjak of Jerusalem was an Ottoman district with special administrative status established in 1872. The district encompassed Jerusalem as well as the other major cities of Gaza, Jaffa, Hebron, Bethlehem and Beersheba. During the late Ottoman period, the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem, together with the Sanjak of Nablus and Sanjak of Acre, formed the region that was commonly referred to as "Southern Syria" or "Palestine".​

The pro-Jihadists that wish to turn the question into an argument over the sovereign rights to the territory are merely attempting to grasp at straws to suggest there is a moral and historical obligation to recognize the Palestinians as a people and a nation. It has nothing to do with the evolution over time of the territorial control over the land parcel. Historically, there are very - very - few territories in the world that have not undergone an evolutionary change in sovereignty and the complexion of governmental control. The area, formerly known as the territory under the Mandate for Palestine, is a land parcel that has changed sovereign control many - many times.

Today, we are discussing the consequences to the evolution of territorial control in the last half century (since 1948). While I find it interesting at how some might re-interpret the historical connections, it has nothing to do with the evolution as viewed today in terms of recognition of sovereignty and control. No matter how the contemporary Palestinian might view history, or whether they recognize the legitimacy of the State of Israel --- it exists.

The issue of the day is not whether there is a historical connection --- it is not a matter of recognition --- it is not a matter of legitimacy... It is a matter of reestablishing regional peace and the neutralization of radical Islamic influences and Jihadist activity.

Most Respectfully,
R
 
RoccoR said:
Mindful, P F Tinmore, et al,

It is merely a territorial reference name; ---- its meaning buried in the context of the historical association.

Mindful said:
P F Tinmore said:
Mindful said:
The Ethnic Cleansing of Jesus.


The birth and life of Jesus has been hijacked by the Palestinian movement, which seeks to portray Jesus as a Palestinian, writes this Noahide Christian. This effort is often referred to as Christian Palestinianism.

The Ethnic Cleansing of Jesus - Op-Eds - Arutz Sheva
Click to expand...
The maps in the back of my Bible call the place Palestine. Preachers call the place Palestine in their sermons.:confused-84:
Click to expand...

I don't know how many times we've explained how that name came about.
Click to expand...
(COMMENT)

The entire basis of the discussion is about the historical connection established. The question of --- "Who are the Palestinians" --- is an argument that has little or no bearing on the issues of the day. Who they are today, is defined by what they manage to control today (which is a deeper question - that may have an answer that they are not proud of). In the 20th century, we've seen two dozen Empires and Dynasties change; one of which was the Ottoman Empire --- the origins of which can be traced back to the late 11th century and the Turkic Emirates of Anatolian Beyliks. At the turn of the 19th-to-20th Century, much of what we call "Palestine" today was under the administration of the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem --- a Sanjak within the Syria Vilayet [(Damsacus) of the Ottoman Empire]. There was no political subdivision known as "Palestine" with the Ottoman Empire --- not for 500 years. "Palestine" was a "regional" name denoting the administrative divisions covered by the Sanjak of Nablus, Sanjak of Acre, and the Mutasarrfate of Jerusalem (Special Ottoman District). (Note: This is historically why today, both the State of Israel (circa 1967) and the State of Palestine (circa 1988) each claim Jerusalem as their respective capitals.)
Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem

The Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem (Ottoman Turkish: Kudüs-i Şerif Mutasarrıflığı; Arabic: متصرفية القدس الشريف‎), also known as the Sanjak of Jerusalem was an Ottoman district with special administrative status established in 1872. The district encompassed Jerusalem as well as the other major cities of Gaza, Jaffa, Hebron, Bethlehem and Beersheba. During the late Ottoman period, the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem, together with the Sanjak of Nablus and Sanjak of Acre, formed the region that was commonly referred to as "Southern Syria" or "Palestine".​

The pro-Jihadists that wish to turn the question into an argument over the sovereign rights to the territory are merely attempting to grasp at straws to suggest there is a moral and historical obligation to recognize the Palestinians as a people and a nation. It has nothing to do with the evolution over time of the territorial control over the land parcel. Historically, there are very - very - few territories in the world that have not undergone an evolutionary change in sovereignty and the complexion of governmental control. The area, formerly known as the territory under the Mandate for Palestine, is a land parcel that has changed sovereign control many - many times.

Today, we are discussing the consequences to the evolution of territorial control in the last half century (since 1948). While I find it interesting at how some might re-interpret the historical connections, it has nothing to do with the evolution as viewed today in terms of recognition of sovereignty and control. No matter how the contemporary Palestinian might view history, or whether they recognize the legitimacy of the State of Israel --- it exists.

The issue of the day is not whether there is a historical connection --- it is not a matter of recognition --- it is not a matter of legitimacy... It is a matter of reestablishing regional peace and the neutralization of radical Islamic influences and Jihadist activity.

Most Respectfully,
R
Click to expand...
Palestine is Palestine by law. Its international borders were defined by post war treaties.

Palestinians are Palestinians by law.
-----------------
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.”​

The automatic, ipso facto, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:
“Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​
 
P F Tinmore said:
RoccoR said:
Mindful, P F Tinmore, et al,

It is merely a territorial reference name; ---- its meaning buried in the context of the historical association.

Mindful said:
P F Tinmore said:
Mindful said:
The Ethnic Cleansing of Jesus.


The birth and life of Jesus has been hijacked by the Palestinian movement, which seeks to portray Jesus as a Palestinian, writes this Noahide Christian. This effort is often referred to as Christian Palestinianism.

The Ethnic Cleansing of Jesus - Op-Eds - Arutz Sheva
Click to expand...
The maps in the back of my Bible call the place Palestine. Preachers call the place Palestine in their sermons.:confused-84:
Click to expand...

I don't know how many times we've explained how that name came about.
Click to expand...
(COMMENT)

The entire basis of the discussion is about the historical connection established. The question of --- "Who are the Palestinians" --- is an argument that has little or no bearing on the issues of the day. Who they are today, is defined by what they manage to control today (which is a deeper question - that may have an answer that they are not proud of). In the 20th century, we've seen two dozen Empires and Dynasties change; one of which was the Ottoman Empire --- the origins of which can be traced back to the late 11th century and the Turkic Emirates of Anatolian Beyliks. At the turn of the 19th-to-20th Century, much of what we call "Palestine" today was under the administration of the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem --- a Sanjak within the Syria Vilayet [(Damsacus) of the Ottoman Empire]. There was no political subdivision known as "Palestine" with the Ottoman Empire --- not for 500 years. "Palestine" was a "regional" name denoting the administrative divisions covered by the Sanjak of Nablus, Sanjak of Acre, and the Mutasarrfate of Jerusalem (Special Ottoman District). (Note: This is historically why today, both the State of Israel (circa 1967) and the State of Palestine (circa 1988) each claim Jerusalem as their respective capitals.)
Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem

The Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem (Ottoman Turkish: Kudüs-i Şerif Mutasarrıflığı; Arabic: متصرفية القدس الشريف‎), also known as the Sanjak of Jerusalem was an Ottoman district with special administrative status established in 1872. The district encompassed Jerusalem as well as the other major cities of Gaza, Jaffa, Hebron, Bethlehem and Beersheba. During the late Ottoman period, the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem, together with the Sanjak of Nablus and Sanjak of Acre, formed the region that was commonly referred to as "Southern Syria" or "Palestine".​

The pro-Jihadists that wish to turn the question into an argument over the sovereign rights to the territory are merely attempting to grasp at straws to suggest there is a moral and historical obligation to recognize the Palestinians as a people and a nation. It has nothing to do with the evolution over time of the territorial control over the land parcel. Historically, there are very - very - few territories in the world that have not undergone an evolutionary change in sovereignty and the complexion of governmental control. The area, formerly known as the territory under the Mandate for Palestine, is a land parcel that has changed sovereign control many - many times.

Today, we are discussing the consequences to the evolution of territorial control in the last half century (since 1948). While I find it interesting at how some might re-interpret the historical connections, it has nothing to do with the evolution as viewed today in terms of recognition of sovereignty and control. No matter how the contemporary Palestinian might view history, or whether they recognize the legitimacy of the State of Israel --- it exists.

The issue of the day is not whether there is a historical connection --- it is not a matter of recognition --- it is not a matter of legitimacy... It is a matter of reestablishing regional peace and the neutralization of radical Islamic influences and Jihadist activity.

Most Respectfully,
R
Click to expand...
Palestine is Palestine by law. Its international borders were defined by post war treaties.

Palestinians are Palestinians by law.
-----------------
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.”​

The automatic, ipso facto, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:
“Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​
Click to expand...

No it wasn't you liar. Like I already proved, the treaty of Lausanne says that the issue of Palestine was to be taken care of by those involved.

Please show me where it says anywhere that Palestines borders were defined by post war treaties?
 
P F Tinmore said:
Mindful said:
The Ethnic Cleansing of Jesus.


The birth and life of Jesus has been hijacked by the Palestinian movement, which seeks to portray Jesus as a Palestinian, writes this Noahide Christian. This effort is often referred to as Christian Palestinianism.

The Ethnic Cleansing of Jesus - Op-Eds - Arutz Sheva
Click to expand...
The maps in the back of my Bible call the place Palestine. Preachers call the place Palestine in their sermons.:confused-84:[/QUOTE

Now THAT'S funny! . Noel Noel Noel Noel, born is the king of PALESTINE. Ya gotta love Tinmore for all the laughs he gives us. Heh Heh!

Click to expand...
 
P F Tinmore said:
RoccoR said:
Mindful, P F Tinmore, et al,

It is merely a territorial reference name; ---- its meaning buried in the context of the historical association.

Mindful said:
P F Tinmore said:
Mindful said:
The Ethnic Cleansing of Jesus.


The birth and life of Jesus has been hijacked by the Palestinian movement, which seeks to portray Jesus as a Palestinian, writes this Noahide Christian. This effort is often referred to as Christian Palestinianism.

The Ethnic Cleansing of Jesus - Op-Eds - Arutz Sheva
Click to expand...
The maps in the back of my Bible call the place Palestine. Preachers call the place Palestine in their sermons.:confused-84:
Click to expand...

I don't know how many times we've explained how that name came about.
Click to expand...
(COMMENT)

The entire basis of the discussion is about the historical connection established. The question of --- "Who are the Palestinians" --- is an argument that has little or no bearing on the issues of the day. Who they are today, is defined by what they manage to control today (which is a deeper question - that may have an answer that they are not proud of). In the 20th century, we've seen two dozen Empires and Dynasties change; one of which was the Ottoman Empire --- the origins of which can be traced back to the late 11th century and the Turkic Emirates of Anatolian Beyliks. At the turn of the 19th-to-20th Century, much of what we call "Palestine" today was under the administration of the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem --- a Sanjak within the Syria Vilayet [(Damsacus) of the Ottoman Empire]. There was no political subdivision known as "Palestine" with the Ottoman Empire --- not for 500 years. "Palestine" was a "regional" name denoting the administrative divisions covered by the Sanjak of Nablus, Sanjak of Acre, and the Mutasarrfate of Jerusalem (Special Ottoman District). (Note: This is historically why today, both the State of Israel (circa 1967) and the State of Palestine (circa 1988) each claim Jerusalem as their respective capitals.)
Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem

The Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem (Ottoman Turkish: Kudüs-i Şerif Mutasarrıflığı; Arabic: متصرفية القدس الشريف‎), also known as the Sanjak of Jerusalem was an Ottoman district with special administrative status established in 1872. The district encompassed Jerusalem as well as the other major cities of Gaza, Jaffa, Hebron, Bethlehem and Beersheba. During the late Ottoman period, the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem, together with the Sanjak of Nablus and Sanjak of Acre, formed the region that was commonly referred to as "Southern Syria" or "Palestine".​

The pro-Jihadists that wish to turn the question into an argument over the sovereign rights to the territory are merely attempting to grasp at straws to suggest there is a moral and historical obligation to recognize the Palestinians as a people and a nation. It has nothing to do with the evolution over time of the territorial control over the land parcel. Historically, there are very - very - few territories in the world that have not undergone an evolutionary change in sovereignty and the complexion of governmental control. The area, formerly known as the territory under the Mandate for Palestine, is a land parcel that has changed sovereign control many - many times.

Today, we are discussing the consequences to the evolution of territorial control in the last half century (since 1948). While I find it interesting at how some might re-interpret the historical connections, it has nothing to do with the evolution as viewed today in terms of recognition of sovereignty and control. No matter how the contemporary Palestinian might view history, or whether they recognize the legitimacy of the State of Israel --- it exists.

The issue of the day is not whether there is a historical connection --- it is not a matter of recognition --- it is not a matter of legitimacy... It is a matter of reestablishing regional peace and the neutralization of radical Islamic influences and Jihadist activity.

Most Respectfully,
R
Click to expand...
Palestine is Palestine by law. Its international borders were defined by post war treaties.

Palestinians are Palestinians by law.
-----------------
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.”​

The automatic, ipso facto, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:
“Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​
Click to expand...




The only borders are those of the MANDATE FOR PALESTINE, not the nation of Palestine. This falls at the first hurdle of any court if used to claim Palestine as a nation existed before 1988.

WRONG again as they became BRITISH Palestinian citizens, an interim measure to allow them to travel freely on valid passports and have valid I.D. papers.

As your first paragraph states " nationals of the state to which territory is transferred" this was Britain as no state of Palestine existed until 1988.
 
P F Tinmore, et al,

I believe you are incorrectly interpreting it again.

P F Tinmore said:
RoccoR said:
Mindful, P F Tinmore, et al,

It is merely a territorial reference name; ---- its meaning buried in the context of the historical association.

Mindful said:
P F Tinmore said:
Mindful said:
The Ethnic Cleansing of Jesus.

The birth and life of Jesus has been hijacked by the Palestinian movement, which seeks to portray Jesus as a Palestinian, writes this Noahide Christian. This effort is often referred to as Christian Palestinianism.

The Ethnic Cleansing of Jesus - Op-Eds - Arutz Sheva
Click to expand...
The maps in the back of my Bible call the place Palestine. Preachers call the place Palestine in their sermons.:confused-84:
Click to expand...

I don't know how many times we've explained how that name came about.
Click to expand...
(COMMENT)

The entire basis of the discussion is about the historical connection established. The question of --- "Who are the Palestinians" --- is an argument that has little or no bearing on the issues of the day. Who they are today, is defined by what they manage to control today (which is a deeper question - that may have an answer that they are not proud of). In the 20th century, we've seen two dozen Empires and Dynasties change; one of which was the Ottoman Empire --- the origins of which can be traced back to the late 11th century and the Turkic Emirates of Anatolian Beyliks. At the turn of the 19th-to-20th Century, much of what we call "Palestine" today was under the administration of the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem --- a Sanjak within the Syria Vilayet [(Damsacus) of the Ottoman Empire]. There was no political subdivision known as "Palestine" with the Ottoman Empire --- not for 500 years. "Palestine" was a "regional" name denoting the administrative divisions covered by the Sanjak of Nablus, Sanjak of Acre, and the Mutasarrfate of Jerusalem (Special Ottoman District). (Note: This is historically why today, both the State of Israel (circa 1967) and the State of Palestine (circa 1988) each claim Jerusalem as their respective capitals.)
Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem

The Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem (Ottoman Turkish: Kudüs-i Şerif Mutasarrıflığı; Arabic: متصرفية القدس الشريف‎), also known as the Sanjak of Jerusalem was an Ottoman district with special administrative status established in 1872. The district encompassed Jerusalem as well as the other major cities of Gaza, Jaffa, Hebron, Bethlehem and Beersheba. During the late Ottoman period, the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem, together with the Sanjak of Nablus and Sanjak of Acre, formed the region that was commonly referred to as "Southern Syria" or "Palestine".​

The pro-Jihadists that wish to turn the question into an argument over the sovereign rights to the territory are merely attempting to grasp at straws to suggest there is a moral and historical obligation to recognize the Palestinians as a people and a nation. It has nothing to do with the evolution over time of the territorial control over the land parcel. Historically, there are very - very - few territories in the world that have not undergone an evolutionary change in sovereignty and the complexion of governmental control. The area, formerly known as the territory under the Mandate for Palestine, is a land parcel that has changed sovereign control many - many times.

Today, we are discussing the consequences to the evolution of territorial control in the last half century (since 1948). While I find it interesting at how some might re-interpret the historical connections, it has nothing to do with the evolution as viewed today in terms of recognition of sovereignty and control. No matter how the contemporary Palestinian might view history, or whether they recognize the legitimacy of the State of Israel --- it exists.

The issue of the day is not whether there is a historical connection --- it is not a matter of recognition --- it is not a matter of legitimacy... It is a matter of reestablishing regional peace and the neutralization of radical Islamic influences and Jihadist activity.

Most Respectfully,
R
Click to expand...
Palestine is Palestine by law. Its international borders were defined by post war treaties.

Palestinians are Palestinians by law.
-----------------
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.”​

The automatic, ipso facto, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:
“Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​
Click to expand...
(COMMENT)

The Palestinians had no Law Making capabilities (Legislative Powers); not under the Ottoman Empire and not under the Mandate.

The Article 30 Passage did not refer to to Palestine specifically, be generally to all the territories under the concept that no person should be "stateless." It did not establish a nation or new nationality.

The second passage was authored and introduced by the Mandatory (the UK). The UK wrote the Citizenship Order, and the meaning of "Palestine" was defined by the Palestine Order in Council" (written by the UK) and referred to the territories under the Mandate. Thus, Palestine Citizens meant something different then you are trying to imply here. At the end of the Mandate, you will not that the UK MEMORANDUM NAMES COMMISSION AS SUCCESSOR GOVERNMENT (PAL/138 27 February 1948) reiterated the status of Palestine:

"Palestine is today a legal entity but it is not a sovereign state. Palestine is a territory administered under mandate by His Majesty (in respect of the United Kingdom), who is entirely responsible both for its internal administration and for its foreign affairs."​

It was not a "sovereign nation."

You are twisting the intent --- trying to assert something that was never stated.

Most Respectfully,
R
 
RoccoR said:
P F Tinmore, et al,

I believe you are incorrectly interpreting it again.

P F Tinmore said:
RoccoR said:
Mindful, P F Tinmore, et al,

It is merely a territorial reference name; ---- its meaning buried in the context of the historical association.

Mindful said:
P F Tinmore said:
Mindful said:
The Ethnic Cleansing of Jesus.

The birth and life of Jesus has been hijacked by the Palestinian movement, which seeks to portray Jesus as a Palestinian, writes this Noahide Christian. This effort is often referred to as Christian Palestinianism.

The Ethnic Cleansing of Jesus - Op-Eds - Arutz Sheva
Click to expand...
The maps in the back of my Bible call the place Palestine. Preachers call the place Palestine in their sermons.:confused-84:
Click to expand...

I don't know how many times we've explained how that name came about.
Click to expand...
(COMMENT)

The entire basis of the discussion is about the historical connection established. The question of --- "Who are the Palestinians" --- is an argument that has little or no bearing on the issues of the day. Who they are today, is defined by what they manage to control today (which is a deeper question - that may have an answer that they are not proud of). In the 20th century, we've seen two dozen Empires and Dynasties change; one of which was the Ottoman Empire --- the origins of which can be traced back to the late 11th century and the Turkic Emirates of Anatolian Beyliks. At the turn of the 19th-to-20th Century, much of what we call "Palestine" today was under the administration of the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem --- a Sanjak within the Syria Vilayet [(Damsacus) of the Ottoman Empire]. There was no political subdivision known as "Palestine" with the Ottoman Empire --- not for 500 years. "Palestine" was a "regional" name denoting the administrative divisions covered by the Sanjak of Nablus, Sanjak of Acre, and the Mutasarrfate of Jerusalem (Special Ottoman District). (Note: This is historically why today, both the State of Israel (circa 1967) and the State of Palestine (circa 1988) each claim Jerusalem as their respective capitals.)
Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem

The Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem (Ottoman Turkish: Kudüs-i Şerif Mutasarrıflığı; Arabic: متصرفية القدس الشريف‎), also known as the Sanjak of Jerusalem was an Ottoman district with special administrative status established in 1872. The district encompassed Jerusalem as well as the other major cities of Gaza, Jaffa, Hebron, Bethlehem and Beersheba. During the late Ottoman period, the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem, together with the Sanjak of Nablus and Sanjak of Acre, formed the region that was commonly referred to as "Southern Syria" or "Palestine".​

The pro-Jihadists that wish to turn the question into an argument over the sovereign rights to the territory are merely attempting to grasp at straws to suggest there is a moral and historical obligation to recognize the Palestinians as a people and a nation. It has nothing to do with the evolution over time of the territorial control over the land parcel. Historically, there are very - very - few territories in the world that have not undergone an evolutionary change in sovereignty and the complexion of governmental control. The area, formerly known as the territory under the Mandate for Palestine, is a land parcel that has changed sovereign control many - many times.

Today, we are discussing the consequences to the evolution of territorial control in the last half century (since 1948). While I find it interesting at how some might re-interpret the historical connections, it has nothing to do with the evolution as viewed today in terms of recognition of sovereignty and control. No matter how the contemporary Palestinian might view history, or whether they recognize the legitimacy of the State of Israel --- it exists.

The issue of the day is not whether there is a historical connection --- it is not a matter of recognition --- it is not a matter of legitimacy... It is a matter of reestablishing regional peace and the neutralization of radical Islamic influences and Jihadist activity.

Most Respectfully,
R
Click to expand...
Palestine is Palestine by law. Its international borders were defined by post war treaties.

Palestinians are Palestinians by law.
-----------------
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.”​

The automatic, ipso facto, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:
“Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​
Click to expand...
(COMMENT)

The Palestinians had no Law Making capabilities (Legislative Powers); not under the Ottoman Empire and not under the Mandate.

The Article 30 Passage did not refer to to Palestine specifically, be generally to all the territories under the concept that no person should be "stateless." It did not establish a nation or new nationality.

The second passage was authored and introduced by the Mandatory (the UK). The UK wrote the Citizenship Order, and the meaning of "Palestine" was defined by the Palestine Order in Council" (written by the UK) and referred to the territories under the Mandate. Thus, Palestine Citizens meant something different then you are trying to imply here. At the end of the Mandate, you will not that the UK MEMORANDUM NAMES COMMISSION AS SUCCESSOR GOVERNMENT (PAL/138 27 February 1948) reiterated the status of Palestine:

"Palestine is today a legal entity but it is not a sovereign state. Palestine is a territory administered under mandate by His Majesty (in respect of the United Kingdom), who is entirely responsible both for its internal administration and for its foreign affairs."​

It was not a "sovereign nation."

You are twisting the intent --- trying to assert something that was never stated.

Most Respectfully,
R
Click to expand...
It was not a "sovereign nation."

You are pimping Israeli propaganda.

The people in trust and non self governing territories have the right to self determination, sovereignty, and territorial integrity without regard to political status.
 
P F Tinmore said:
RoccoR said:
P F Tinmore, et al,

I believe you are incorrectly interpreting it again.

P F Tinmore said:
RoccoR said:
Mindful, P F Tinmore, et al,

It is merely a territorial reference name; ---- its meaning buried in the context of the historical association.

Mindful said:
P F Tinmore said:
The maps in the back of my Bible call the place Palestine. Preachers call the place Palestine in their sermons.:confused-84:
Click to expand...

I don't know how many times we've explained how that name came about.
Click to expand...
(COMMENT)

The entire basis of the discussion is about the historical connection established. The question of --- "Who are the Palestinians" --- is an argument that has little or no bearing on the issues of the day. Who they are today, is defined by what they manage to control today (which is a deeper question - that may have an answer that they are not proud of). In the 20th century, we've seen two dozen Empires and Dynasties change; one of which was the Ottoman Empire --- the origins of which can be traced back to the late 11th century and the Turkic Emirates of Anatolian Beyliks. At the turn of the 19th-to-20th Century, much of what we call "Palestine" today was under the administration of the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem --- a Sanjak within the Syria Vilayet [(Damsacus) of the Ottoman Empire]. There was no political subdivision known as "Palestine" with the Ottoman Empire --- not for 500 years. "Palestine" was a "regional" name denoting the administrative divisions covered by the Sanjak of Nablus, Sanjak of Acre, and the Mutasarrfate of Jerusalem (Special Ottoman District). (Note: This is historically why today, both the State of Israel (circa 1967) and the State of Palestine (circa 1988) each claim Jerusalem as their respective capitals.)
Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem

The Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem (Ottoman Turkish: Kudüs-i Şerif Mutasarrıflığı; Arabic: متصرفية القدس الشريف‎), also known as the Sanjak of Jerusalem was an Ottoman district with special administrative status established in 1872. The district encompassed Jerusalem as well as the other major cities of Gaza, Jaffa, Hebron, Bethlehem and Beersheba. During the late Ottoman period, the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem, together with the Sanjak of Nablus and Sanjak of Acre, formed the region that was commonly referred to as "Southern Syria" or "Palestine".​

The pro-Jihadists that wish to turn the question into an argument over the sovereign rights to the territory are merely attempting to grasp at straws to suggest there is a moral and historical obligation to recognize the Palestinians as a people and a nation. It has nothing to do with the evolution over time of the territorial control over the land parcel. Historically, there are very - very - few territories in the world that have not undergone an evolutionary change in sovereignty and the complexion of governmental control. The area, formerly known as the territory under the Mandate for Palestine, is a land parcel that has changed sovereign control many - many times.

Today, we are discussing the consequences to the evolution of territorial control in the last half century (since 1948). While I find it interesting at how some might re-interpret the historical connections, it has nothing to do with the evolution as viewed today in terms of recognition of sovereignty and control. No matter how the contemporary Palestinian might view history, or whether they recognize the legitimacy of the State of Israel --- it exists.

The issue of the day is not whether there is a historical connection --- it is not a matter of recognition --- it is not a matter of legitimacy... It is a matter of reestablishing regional peace and the neutralization of radical Islamic influences and Jihadist activity.

Most Respectfully,
R
Click to expand...
Palestine is Palestine by law. Its international borders were defined by post war treaties.

Palestinians are Palestinians by law.
-----------------
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.”​

The automatic, ipso facto, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:
“Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​
Click to expand...
(COMMENT)

The Palestinians had no Law Making capabilities (Legislative Powers); not under the Ottoman Empire and not under the Mandate.

The Article 30 Passage did not refer to to Palestine specifically, be generally to all the territories under the concept that no person should be "stateless." It did not establish a nation or new nationality.

The second passage was authored and introduced by the Mandatory (the UK). The UK wrote the Citizenship Order, and the meaning of "Palestine" was defined by the Palestine Order in Council" (written by the UK) and referred to the territories under the Mandate. Thus, Palestine Citizens meant something different then you are trying to imply here. At the end of the Mandate, you will not that the UK MEMORANDUM NAMES COMMISSION AS SUCCESSOR GOVERNMENT (PAL/138 27 February 1948) reiterated the status of Palestine:

"Palestine is today a legal entity but it is not a sovereign state. Palestine is a territory administered under mandate by His Majesty (in respect of the United Kingdom), who is entirely responsible both for its internal administration and for its foreign affairs."​

It was not a "sovereign nation."

You are twisting the intent --- trying to assert something that was never stated.

Most Respectfully,
R
Click to expand...
It was not a "sovereign nation."

You are pimping Israeli propaganda.

The people in trust and non self governing territories have the right to self determination, sovereignty, and territorial integrity without regard to political status.
Click to expand...

Are you serious? Give Palestinians "self determination" without having Israel to suck off of any longer?? Do you hate Palestinians?
 
Penelope said:
That's as far as I got, a mighty Jewish empire never existed.
Click to expand...

King David conquered Syria and what is now Jordan. At that time his empire had roughly the same territory and population of the empires of Egypt, and Assyria.

Unfortunately, the Israelites did little to assimilate the peoples they conquered and to encourage them to identify themselves as Israelites. Therefore, David's empire was unstable. As soon as the conquered peoples could become independent, they did.
 
P F Tinmore said:
RoccoR said:
P F Tinmore, et al,

I believe you are incorrectly interpreting it again.

P F Tinmore said:
RoccoR said:
Mindful, P F Tinmore, et al,

It is merely a territorial reference name; ---- its meaning buried in the context of the historical association.

Mindful said:
P F Tinmore said:
The maps in the back of my Bible call the place Palestine. Preachers call the place Palestine in their sermons.:confused-84:
Click to expand...

I don't know how many times we've explained how that name came about.
Click to expand...
(COMMENT)

The entire basis of the discussion is about the historical connection established. The question of --- "Who are the Palestinians" --- is an argument that has little or no bearing on the issues of the day. Who they are today, is defined by what they manage to control today (which is a deeper question - that may have an answer that they are not proud of). In the 20th century, we've seen two dozen Empires and Dynasties change; one of which was the Ottoman Empire --- the origins of which can be traced back to the late 11th century and the Turkic Emirates of Anatolian Beyliks. At the turn of the 19th-to-20th Century, much of what we call "Palestine" today was under the administration of the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem --- a Sanjak within the Syria Vilayet [(Damsacus) of the Ottoman Empire]. There was no political subdivision known as "Palestine" with the Ottoman Empire --- not for 500 years. "Palestine" was a "regional" name denoting the administrative divisions covered by the Sanjak of Nablus, Sanjak of Acre, and the Mutasarrfate of Jerusalem (Special Ottoman District). (Note: This is historically why today, both the State of Israel (circa 1967) and the State of Palestine (circa 1988) each claim Jerusalem as their respective capitals.)
Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem

The Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem (Ottoman Turkish: Kudüs-i Şerif Mutasarrıflığı; Arabic: متصرفية القدس الشريف‎), also known as the Sanjak of Jerusalem was an Ottoman district with special administrative status established in 1872. The district encompassed Jerusalem as well as the other major cities of Gaza, Jaffa, Hebron, Bethlehem and Beersheba. During the late Ottoman period, the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem, together with the Sanjak of Nablus and Sanjak of Acre, formed the region that was commonly referred to as "Southern Syria" or "Palestine".​

The pro-Jihadists that wish to turn the question into an argument over the sovereign rights to the territory are merely attempting to grasp at straws to suggest there is a moral and historical obligation to recognize the Palestinians as a people and a nation. It has nothing to do with the evolution over time of the territorial control over the land parcel. Historically, there are very - very - few territories in the world that have not undergone an evolutionary change in sovereignty and the complexion of governmental control. The area, formerly known as the territory under the Mandate for Palestine, is a land parcel that has changed sovereign control many - many times.

Today, we are discussing the consequences to the evolution of territorial control in the last half century (since 1948). While I find it interesting at how some might re-interpret the historical connections, it has nothing to do with the evolution as viewed today in terms of recognition of sovereignty and control. No matter how the contemporary Palestinian might view history, or whether they recognize the legitimacy of the State of Israel --- it exists.

The issue of the day is not whether there is a historical connection --- it is not a matter of recognition --- it is not a matter of legitimacy... It is a matter of reestablishing regional peace and the neutralization of radical Islamic influences and Jihadist activity.

Most Respectfully,
R
Click to expand...
Palestine is Palestine by law. Its international borders were defined by post war treaties.

Palestinians are Palestinians by law.
-----------------
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.”​

The automatic, ipso facto, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:
“Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​
Click to expand...
(COMMENT)

The Palestinians had no Law Making capabilities (Legislative Powers); not under the Ottoman Empire and not under the Mandate.

The Article 30 Passage did not refer to to Palestine specifically, be generally to all the territories under the concept that no person should be "stateless." It did not establish a nation or new nationality.

The second passage was authored and introduced by the Mandatory (the UK). The UK wrote the Citizenship Order, and the meaning of "Palestine" was defined by the Palestine Order in Council" (written by the UK) and referred to the territories under the Mandate. Thus, Palestine Citizens meant something different then you are trying to imply here. At the end of the Mandate, you will not that the UK MEMORANDUM NAMES COMMISSION AS SUCCESSOR GOVERNMENT (PAL/138 27 February 1948) reiterated the status of Palestine:

"Palestine is today a legal entity but it is not a sovereign state. Palestine is a territory administered under mandate by His Majesty (in respect of the United Kingdom), who is entirely responsible both for its internal administration and for its foreign affairs."​

It was not a "sovereign nation."

You are twisting the intent --- trying to assert something that was never stated.

Most Respectfully,
R
Click to expand...
It was not a "sovereign nation."

You are pimping Israeli propaganda.

The people in trust and non self governing territories have the right to self determination, sovereignty, and territorial integrity without regard to political status.
Click to expand...


Not in the 1920's to 1948 they didn't, as that was recent legislature. So stop trying to make the new customs fit olden days
 
Phoenall said:
P F Tinmore said:
RoccoR said:
Mindful, P F Tinmore, et al,

It is merely a territorial reference name; ---- its meaning buried in the context of the historical association.

Mindful said:
P F Tinmore said:
Mindful said:
The Ethnic Cleansing of Jesus.


The birth and life of Jesus has been hijacked by the Palestinian movement, which seeks to portray Jesus as a Palestinian, writes this Noahide Christian. This effort is often referred to as Christian Palestinianism.

The Ethnic Cleansing of Jesus - Op-Eds - Arutz Sheva
Click to expand...
The maps in the back of my Bible call the place Palestine. Preachers call the place Palestine in their sermons.:confused-84:
Click to expand...

I don't know how many times we've explained how that name came about.
Click to expand...
(COMMENT)

The entire basis of the discussion is about the historical connection established. The question of --- "Who are the Palestinians" --- is an argument that has little or no bearing on the issues of the day. Who they are today, is defined by what they manage to control today (which is a deeper question - that may have an answer that they are not proud of). In the 20th century, we've seen two dozen Empires and Dynasties change; one of which was the Ottoman Empire --- the origins of which can be traced back to the late 11th century and the Turkic Emirates of Anatolian Beyliks. At the turn of the 19th-to-20th Century, much of what we call "Palestine" today was under the administration of the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem --- a Sanjak within the Syria Vilayet [(Damsacus) of the Ottoman Empire]. There was no political subdivision known as "Palestine" with the Ottoman Empire --- not for 500 years. "Palestine" was a "regional" name denoting the administrative divisions covered by the Sanjak of Nablus, Sanjak of Acre, and the Mutasarrfate of Jerusalem (Special Ottoman District). (Note: This is historically why today, both the State of Israel (circa 1967) and the State of Palestine (circa 1988) each claim Jerusalem as their respective capitals.)
Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem

The Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem (Ottoman Turkish: Kudüs-i Şerif Mutasarrıflığı; Arabic: متصرفية القدس الشريف‎), also known as the Sanjak of Jerusalem was an Ottoman district with special administrative status established in 1872. The district encompassed Jerusalem as well as the other major cities of Gaza, Jaffa, Hebron, Bethlehem and Beersheba. During the late Ottoman period, the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem, together with the Sanjak of Nablus and Sanjak of Acre, formed the region that was commonly referred to as "Southern Syria" or "Palestine".​

The pro-Jihadists that wish to turn the question into an argument over the sovereign rights to the territory are merely attempting to grasp at straws to suggest there is a moral and historical obligation to recognize the Palestinians as a people and a nation. It has nothing to do with the evolution over time of the territorial control over the land parcel. Historically, there are very - very - few territories in the world that have not undergone an evolutionary change in sovereignty and the complexion of governmental control. The area, formerly known as the territory under the Mandate for Palestine, is a land parcel that has changed sovereign control many - many times.

Today, we are discussing the consequences to the evolution of territorial control in the last half century (since 1948). While I find it interesting at how some might re-interpret the historical connections, it has nothing to do with the evolution as viewed today in terms of recognition of sovereignty and control. No matter how the contemporary Palestinian might view history, or whether they recognize the legitimacy of the State of Israel --- it exists.

The issue of the day is not whether there is a historical connection --- it is not a matter of recognition --- it is not a matter of legitimacy... It is a matter of reestablishing regional peace and the neutralization of radical Islamic influences and Jihadist activity.

Most Respectfully,
R
Click to expand...
Palestine is Palestine by law. Its international borders were defined by post war treaties.

Palestinians are Palestinians by law.
-----------------
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.”​

The automatic, ipso facto, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:
“Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​
Click to expand...




The only borders are those of the MANDATE FOR PALESTINE, not the nation of Palestine. This falls at the first hurdle of any court if used to claim Palestine as a nation existed before 1988.

WRONG again as they became BRITISH Palestinian citizens, an interim measure to allow them to travel freely on valid passports and have valid I.D. papers.

As your first paragraph states " nationals of the state to which territory is transferred" this was Britain as no state of Palestine existed until 1988.
Click to expand...
Palestine, as the mandate clearly showed, was a subject under international law. While she could not conclude international conventions, the mandatory Power, until further notice, concluded them on her behalf, in virtue of Article 19 of the mandate. The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which again showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity.
- See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937
 
P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh --- come now! This is a gross misinterpretation.

P F Tinmore said:
Palestine, as the mandate clearly showed, was a subject under international law. While she could not conclude international conventions, the mandatory Power, until further notice, concluded them on her behalf, in virtue of Article 19 of the mandate. The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which again showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity.
- See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937
Click to expand...
(COMMENT)

Article 19 of the Mandate, was a measure to insure that the Mandatory --- as the Administrator of the Mandate of Palestine --- would apply certain International Conventions to the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies under the Palestine Order in Council.

Article 7 of the Mandate, ensures that the Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law, to the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies; pursuant to Clauses 59 and 64 of the Palestine Order in Council and --- the parallel Palestine Legislative Council Election Order, 1922 (Clause 2) which indicates that "For the purposes of this Order and pending the introduction of an Order in Council regulating Palestinian citizenship, the following persons shall be deemed to be Palestinian citizens:--
ecblank.gif
(a)Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the date of commencement of this Order.
ecblank.gif
(b)All persons of other than Turkish nationality habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the said date, who shall within two calendar months of the said date make application for Palestinian citizenship in such form and before such officer as may be prescribed by the High Commissioner. " (Note: Amended slightly by the 1925 Citizenship Order.)

These two "articles" had nothing to do with the suggestion that the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies under the Palestine Order in Council of 1922, AKA: Palestine (see Clause 1 --- Part I) that the description of Palestine was anything other than "the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine." And the description of that legal entity lasted until the termination of the Mandate in 1948 and the trusteeship was passed the the Successor Government.

Whatever a "separate political entity" may have been 1937 --- it was still a non-self-governing entity. The minutes of the meeting did not end with a change in the status of Palestine as described under the Order in Council, or the Mandate.

Most Respectfully,
R
 
15th post
RoccoR said:
P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh --- come now! This is a gross misinterpretation.

P F Tinmore said:
Palestine, as the mandate clearly showed, was a subject under international law. While she could not conclude international conventions, the mandatory Power, until further notice, concluded them on her behalf, in virtue of Article 19 of the mandate. The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which again showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity.
- See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937
Click to expand...
(COMMENT)

Article 19 of the Mandate, was a measure to insure that the Mandatory --- as the Administrator of the Mandate of Palestine --- would apply certain International Conventions to the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies under the Palestine Order in Council.

Article 7 of the Mandate, ensures that the Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law, to the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies; pursuant to Clauses 59 and 64 of the Palestine Order in Council and --- the parallel Palestine Legislative Council Election Order, 1922 (Clause 2) which indicates that "For the purposes of this Order and pending the introduction of an Order in Council regulating Palestinian citizenship, the following persons shall be deemed to be Palestinian citizens:--
ecblank.gif
(a)Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the date of commencement of this Order.
ecblank.gif
(b)All persons of other than Turkish nationality habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the said date, who shall within two calendar months of the said date make application for Palestinian citizenship in such form and before such officer as may be prescribed by the High Commissioner. " (Note: Amended slightly by the 1925 Citizenship Order.)

These two "articles" had nothing to do with the suggestion that the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies under the Palestine Order in Council of 1922, AKA: Palestine (see Clause 1 --- Part I) that the description of Palestine was anything other than "the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine." And the description of that legal entity lasted until the termination of the Mandate in 1948 and the trusteeship was passed the the Successor Government.

Whatever a "separate political entity" may have been 1937 --- it was still a non-self-governing entity. The minutes of the meeting did not end with a change in the status of Palestine as described under the Order in Council, or the Mandate.

Most Respectfully,
R
Click to expand...
RoccoR , Tinmore has a severe case of Oldtimers Disease and is to be excused.
 
RoccoR said:
P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh --- come now! This is a gross misinterpretation.

P F Tinmore said:
Palestine, as the mandate clearly showed, was a subject under international law. While she could not conclude international conventions, the mandatory Power, until further notice, concluded them on her behalf, in virtue of Article 19 of the mandate. The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which again showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity.
- See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937
Click to expand...
(COMMENT)

Article 19 of the Mandate, was a measure to insure that the Mandatory --- as the Administrator of the Mandate of Palestine --- would apply certain International Conventions to the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies under the Palestine Order in Council.

Article 7 of the Mandate, ensures that the Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law, to the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies; pursuant to Clauses 59 and 64 of the Palestine Order in Council and --- the parallel Palestine Legislative Council Election Order, 1922 (Clause 2) which indicates that "For the purposes of this Order and pending the introduction of an Order in Council regulating Palestinian citizenship, the following persons shall be deemed to be Palestinian citizens:--
ecblank.gif
(a)Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the date of commencement of this Order.
ecblank.gif
(b)All persons of other than Turkish nationality habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the said date, who shall within two calendar months of the said date make application for Palestinian citizenship in such form and before such officer as may be prescribed by the High Commissioner. " (Note: Amended slightly by the 1925 Citizenship Order.)

These two "articles" had nothing to do with the suggestion that the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies under the Palestine Order in Council of 1922, AKA: Palestine (see Clause 1 --- Part I) that the description of Palestine was anything other than "the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine." And the description of that legal entity lasted until the termination of the Mandate in 1948 and the trusteeship was passed the the Successor Government.

Whatever a "separate political entity" may have been 1937 --- it was still a non-self-governing entity. The minutes of the meeting did not end with a change in the status of Palestine as described under the Order in Council, or the Mandate.

Most Respectfully,
R
Click to expand...
What part of this changes my post?

Be more specific.
 
P F Tinmore said:
RoccoR said:
P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh --- come now! This is a gross misinterpretation.

P F Tinmore said:
Palestine, as the mandate clearly showed, was a subject under international law. While she could not conclude international conventions, the mandatory Power, until further notice, concluded them on her behalf, in virtue of Article 19 of the mandate. The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which again showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity.
- See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937
Click to expand...
(COMMENT)

Article 19 of the Mandate, was a measure to insure that the Mandatory --- as the Administrator of the Mandate of Palestine --- would apply certain International Conventions to the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies under the Palestine Order in Council.

Article 7 of the Mandate, ensures that the Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law, to the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies; pursuant to Clauses 59 and 64 of the Palestine Order in Council and --- the parallel Palestine Legislative Council Election Order, 1922 (Clause 2) which indicates that "For the purposes of this Order and pending the introduction of an Order in Council regulating Palestinian citizenship, the following persons shall be deemed to be Palestinian citizens:--
ecblank.gif
(a)Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the date of commencement of this Order.
ecblank.gif
(b)All persons of other than Turkish nationality habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the said date, who shall within two calendar months of the said date make application for Palestinian citizenship in such form and before such officer as may be prescribed by the High Commissioner. " (Note: Amended slightly by the 1925 Citizenship Order.)

These two "articles" had nothing to do with the suggestion that the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies under the Palestine Order in Council of 1922, AKA: Palestine (see Clause 1 --- Part I) that the description of Palestine was anything other than "the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine." And the description of that legal entity lasted until the termination of the Mandate in 1948 and the trusteeship was passed the the Successor Government.

Whatever a "separate political entity" may have been 1937 --- it was still a non-self-governing entity. The minutes of the meeting did not end with a change in the status of Palestine as described under the Order in Council, or the Mandate.

Most Respectfully,
R
Click to expand...
What part of this changes my post?
Click to expand...
Said post hasn't changed and remains drivel, of course.
 
P F Tinmore said:
Phoenall said:
P F Tinmore said:
RoccoR said:
Mindful, P F Tinmore, et al,

It is merely a territorial reference name; ---- its meaning buried in the context of the historical association.

Mindful said:
P F Tinmore said:
The maps in the back of my Bible call the place Palestine. Preachers call the place Palestine in their sermons.:confused-84:
Click to expand...

I don't know how many times we've explained how that name came about.
Click to expand...
(COMMENT)

The entire basis of the discussion is about the historical connection established. The question of --- "Who are the Palestinians" --- is an argument that has little or no bearing on the issues of the day. Who they are today, is defined by what they manage to control today (which is a deeper question - that may have an answer that they are not proud of). In the 20th century, we've seen two dozen Empires and Dynasties change; one of which was the Ottoman Empire --- the origins of which can be traced back to the late 11th century and the Turkic Emirates of Anatolian Beyliks. At the turn of the 19th-to-20th Century, much of what we call "Palestine" today was under the administration of the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem --- a Sanjak within the Syria Vilayet [(Damsacus) of the Ottoman Empire]. There was no political subdivision known as "Palestine" with the Ottoman Empire --- not for 500 years. "Palestine" was a "regional" name denoting the administrative divisions covered by the Sanjak of Nablus, Sanjak of Acre, and the Mutasarrfate of Jerusalem (Special Ottoman District). (Note: This is historically why today, both the State of Israel (circa 1967) and the State of Palestine (circa 1988) each claim Jerusalem as their respective capitals.)
Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem

The Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem (Ottoman Turkish: Kudüs-i Şerif Mutasarrıflığı; Arabic: متصرفية القدس الشريف‎), also known as the Sanjak of Jerusalem was an Ottoman district with special administrative status established in 1872. The district encompassed Jerusalem as well as the other major cities of Gaza, Jaffa, Hebron, Bethlehem and Beersheba. During the late Ottoman period, the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem, together with the Sanjak of Nablus and Sanjak of Acre, formed the region that was commonly referred to as "Southern Syria" or "Palestine".​

The pro-Jihadists that wish to turn the question into an argument over the sovereign rights to the territory are merely attempting to grasp at straws to suggest there is a moral and historical obligation to recognize the Palestinians as a people and a nation. It has nothing to do with the evolution over time of the territorial control over the land parcel. Historically, there are very - very - few territories in the world that have not undergone an evolutionary change in sovereignty and the complexion of governmental control. The area, formerly known as the territory under the Mandate for Palestine, is a land parcel that has changed sovereign control many - many times.

Today, we are discussing the consequences to the evolution of territorial control in the last half century (since 1948). While I find it interesting at how some might re-interpret the historical connections, it has nothing to do with the evolution as viewed today in terms of recognition of sovereignty and control. No matter how the contemporary Palestinian might view history, or whether they recognize the legitimacy of the State of Israel --- it exists.

The issue of the day is not whether there is a historical connection --- it is not a matter of recognition --- it is not a matter of legitimacy... It is a matter of reestablishing regional peace and the neutralization of radical Islamic influences and Jihadist activity.

Most Respectfully,
R
Click to expand...
Palestine is Palestine by law. Its international borders were defined by post war treaties.

Palestinians are Palestinians by law.
-----------------
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.”​

The automatic, ipso facto, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:
“Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​
Click to expand...




The only borders are those of the MANDATE FOR PALESTINE, not the nation of Palestine. This falls at the first hurdle of any court if used to claim Palestine as a nation existed before 1988.

WRONG again as they became BRITISH Palestinian citizens, an interim measure to allow them to travel freely on valid passports and have valid I.D. papers.

As your first paragraph states " nationals of the state to which territory is transferred" this was Britain as no state of Palestine existed until 1988.
Click to expand...
Palestine, as the mandate clearly showed, was a subject under international law. While she could not conclude international conventions, the mandatory Power, until further notice, concluded them on her behalf, in virtue of Article 19 of the mandate. The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which again showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity.
- See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937
Click to expand...




Just the MANDATE FOR PALESTINE, and the truth is that the people were granted a watered down version of British citizenship. They did not issue their own passports in the name of Palestine, apart from a short period in the 1930's
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

These Jews Ain't Liberal

< Previous Thread

US Pledges 12 million to “Gaza Reconstruction”

Next Thread >

Similar threads

Pastelli
Arab reporter says Arab "palestinians" would bring their kids to riots hoping they'd be injured or arrested so they would get paid by the PA
Replies
15
Views
329
Pastelli
Pastelli
Pastelli
  • Locked
Would you sell your wife's jewelry to buy a gun? Every Palestinian would.
Replies
17
Views
285
OKTexas
OKTexas
Pastelli
"Palestine" Islamic Jihad knowingly fired faulty rockets in Gaza, killing 'a thousand' Arabs, document reveals
Replies
2
Views
331
Cassandro
C
Pastelli
  • Locked
Munther Isaac: 'Islamo-Christian' dubbed 'High Priest of Antisemitism' – Justifying Genocidal "Palestine" Islamic Massacres While Cloaked in Clerical
Replies
3
Views
241
OKTexas
OKTexas
FDR_Reagan
PALLYWOOD: The Arab invaders/immigrants/settlers known (since the 1950s) as "palestinians"- just aged by 4000 years
Replies
10
Views
242
FDR_Reagan
FDR_Reagan

New Topics

Latest Discussions

Back
Top Bottom