Who Are The Palestinians?

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is merely a one-sided interpretation of the facts; as the hostile Palestinian sees it (as opposed to various other factions).

Not true.

UN resolution 181 flopped. The creation of Israel was a unilateral move.

(COMMENT)

There are a number of observers (both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian) that would prefer GA Resolution 181(II), 29 November 1947, to be wiped from history. It is simply not that easy. Israel had to complete the Step Preparatory to Independence outlined in the Resolution to the satisfaction of the UN Palestine Commission (UNPC --- the Successor Government).

First, in 1948, the Successor Government to Palestine (UNPC) officially announced (PAL/169 17 May 1948) through UN Channels:

During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented."​

Second, the GA Resolution A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988 which Acknowledges the proclamation of the State of Palestine (See Link A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988) by the Palestine National Council on 15 November 1988, Palestinian Declaration of Independence, make direct reference to Resolution 181(II):

Palestinian Proclamation:

By virtue of the natural, historical and legal right of the Palestinian Arab people to its homeland, Palestine, and of the sacrifices of its succeeding generations in defence of the freedom and independence of that homeland,
Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947, and Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:
The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.​

UN Acknowledgement:

Recalling its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947, in which, inter alia, it called for the establishment of an Arab State and a Jewish State in Palestine,
Aware of the proclamation of the State of Palestine by the Palestine National Council in line with General Assembly resolution 181 (II) and in exercise of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people,​

Third, that in the Letter dated 25 March 1999 from the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General (A/53/879 S/1999/334 25 March 1999), the Palestinians official take the position that:

For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a corpus separatum, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II), as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process.

Israel must comply with United Nations resolutions. It has no power to unilaterally annul any of those resolutions, particularly such a historic resolution as 181 (II). Israel's claim that the resolution is "null and void" is illegal, and it is also inadmissible given the history of the matter.
​

Fourth, that Resolution adopted by the General Assembly 67/19. Status of Palestine in the United Nations (A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012) which Decides to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations --- states: Recalling its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947,​

These four points make it clear that Resolution 181(II) was active and acknowledged by the UN and the Palestinians up to and through the Process used by the Palestinian Authority to achieve both "State" status and membership into key UN organizations, treaties and conventions.

My interpretation is not one held by Israel --- but --- one held by the sole representative of the Palestinian people.

Most Respectfully,
R

Yeah, yeah, you have posted that verbosity before. Look at the facts.

Neither Israel nor Palestine ever accepted resolution 181. By the time Israel mentioned the resolution in its declaration of independence it had already violated all of the major tenets of the resolution. Israel never had any intentions of abiding by resolution 181.

The UN did not lift a finger to defend the resolution from Israel's violations.

Sure, the PLO mentioned resolution 181. What part of it was revived by that? None of it. It is just as dead as it was in 1948.

First off, I've asked you several times in the past to provide a link for the bold.

Second, Rocco and I have provided several links that proves that resolution 181 was valid and absolutely was used in Israels' DOI (1948) and 'Palestines' DOI (1988)

You have provided ZERO evidence to back up your claim. All you end up doing is asking stupid and irrelevant questions.
Then you have the nerve to call Rocco's post verbosity, and ask him to look at the fact. Guess what, he provided facts with link, you didn't.
Therefore, you lost the debate.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is merely a one-sided interpretation of the facts; as the hostile Palestinian sees it (as opposed to various other factions).

Not true.

UN resolution 181 flopped. The creation of Israel was a unilateral move.

(COMMENT)

There are a number of observers (both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian) that would prefer GA Resolution 181(II), 29 November 1947, to be wiped from history. It is simply not that easy. Israel had to complete the Step Preparatory to Independence outlined in the Resolution to the satisfaction of the UN Palestine Commission (UNPC --- the Successor Government).

First, in 1948, the Successor Government to Palestine (UNPC) officially announced (PAL/169 17 May 1948) through UN Channels:

During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented."​

Second, the GA Resolution A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988 which Acknowledges the proclamation of the State of Palestine (See Link A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988) by the Palestine National Council on 15 November 1988, Palestinian Declaration of Independence, make direct reference to Resolution 181(II):

Palestinian Proclamation:

By virtue of the natural, historical and legal right of the Palestinian Arab people to its homeland, Palestine, and of the sacrifices of its succeeding generations in defence of the freedom and independence of that homeland,
Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947, and Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:
The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.​

UN Acknowledgement:

Recalling its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947, in which, inter alia, it called for the establishment of an Arab State and a Jewish State in Palestine,
Aware of the proclamation of the State of Palestine by the Palestine National Council in line with General Assembly resolution 181 (II) and in exercise of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people,​

Third, that in the Letter dated 25 March 1999 from the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General (A/53/879 S/1999/334 25 March 1999), the Palestinians official take the position that:

For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a corpus separatum, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II), as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process.

Israel must comply with United Nations resolutions. It has no power to unilaterally annul any of those resolutions, particularly such a historic resolution as 181 (II). Israel's claim that the resolution is "null and void" is illegal, and it is also inadmissible given the history of the matter.
​

Fourth, that Resolution adopted by the General Assembly 67/19. Status of Palestine in the United Nations (A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012) which Decides to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations --- states: Recalling its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947,​

These four points make it clear that Resolution 181(II) was active and acknowledged by the UN and the Palestinians up to and through the Process used by the Palestinian Authority to achieve both "State" status and membership into key UN organizations, treaties and conventions.

My interpretation is not one held by Israel --- but --- one held by the sole representative of the Palestinian people.

Most Respectfully,
R

Yeah, yeah, you have posted that verbosity before. Look at the facts.

Neither Israel nor Palestine ever accepted resolution 181. By the time Israel mentioned the resolution in its declaration of independence it had already violated all of the major tenets of the resolution. Israel never had any intentions of abiding by resolution 181.

The UN did not lift a finger to defend the resolution from Israel's violations.

Sure, the PLO mentioned resolution 181. What part of it was revived by that? None of it. It is just as dead as it was in 1948.

First off, I've asked you several times in the past to provide a link for the bold.

Second, Rocco and I have provided several links that proves that resolution 181 was valid and absolutely was used in Israels' DOI (1948) and 'Palestines' DOI (1988)

You have provided ZERO evidence to back up your claim. All you end up doing is asking stupid and irrelevant questions.
Then you have the nerve to call Rocco's post verbosity, and ask him to look at the fact. Guess what, he provided facts with link, you didn't.
Therefore, you lost the debate.

Sure he did, but what is the relevance? You are not looking at the facts.

By the time Israel mentioned resolution 181 it was already removing Palestinians from their homes in the territory designated for the Jewish state. It had already moved into the territory designated for the Arab state expelling the Palestinians. It had already attacked Jerusalem and was expelling Palestinians. Over 300,000 Palestinians were refugees before the start of the 1948 war.

Israel had already violated the rights of the non Jewish population, the proposed borders, the designated Arab territory, and the international city of Jerusalem. What part of resolution 181 did Israel accept?

 

[theliq]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is merely a one-sided interpretation of the facts; as the hostile Palestinian sees it (as opposed to various other factions).

Not true.

UN resolution 181 flopped. The creation of Israel was a unilateral move.

(COMMENT)

There are a number of observers (both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian) that would prefer GA Resolution 181(II), 29 November 1947, to be wiped from history. It is simply not that easy. Israel had to complete the Step Preparatory to Independence outlined in the Resolution to the satisfaction of the UN Palestine Commission (UNPC --- the Successor Government).

First, in 1948, the Successor Government to Palestine (UNPC) officially announced (PAL/169 17 May 1948) through UN Channels:

During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented."​

Second, the GA Resolution A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988 which Acknowledges the proclamation of the State of Palestine (See Link A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988) by the Palestine National Council on 15 November 1988, Palestinian Declaration of Independence, make direct reference to Resolution 181(II):

Palestinian Proclamation:

By virtue of the natural, historical and legal right of the Palestinian Arab people to its homeland, Palestine, and of the sacrifices of its succeeding generations in defence of the freedom and independence of that homeland,
Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947, and Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:
The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.​

UN Acknowledgement:

Recalling its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947, in which, inter alia, it called for the establishment of an Arab State and a Jewish State in Palestine,
Aware of the proclamation of the State of Palestine by the Palestine National Council in line with General Assembly resolution 181 (II) and in exercise of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people,​

Third, that in the Letter dated 25 March 1999 from the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General (A/53/879 S/1999/334 25 March 1999), the Palestinians official take the position that:

For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a corpus separatum, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II), as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process.

Israel must comply with United Nations resolutions. It has no power to unilaterally annul any of those resolutions, particularly such a historic resolution as 181 (II). Israel's claim that the resolution is "null and void" is illegal, and it is also inadmissible given the history of the matter.
​

Fourth, that Resolution adopted by the General Assembly 67/19. Status of Palestine in the United Nations (A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012) which Decides to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations --- states: Recalling its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947,​

These four points make it clear that Resolution 181(II) was active and acknowledged by the UN and the Palestinians up to and through the Process used by the Palestinian Authority to achieve both "State" status and membership into key UN organizations, treaties and conventions.

My interpretation is not one held by Israel --- but --- one held by the sole representative of the Palestinian people.

Most Respectfully,
R

Yeah, yeah, you have posted that verbosity before. Look at the facts.

Neither Israel nor Palestine ever accepted resolution 181. By the time Israel mentioned the resolution in its declaration of independence it had already violated all of the major tenets of the resolution. Israel never had any intentions of abiding by resolution 181.

The UN did not lift a finger to defend the resolution from Israel's violations.

Sure, the PLO mentioned resolution 181. What part of it was revived by that? None of it. It is just as dead as it was in 1948.

First off, I've asked you several times in the past to provide a link for the bold.

Second, Rocco and I have provided several links that proves that resolution 181 was valid and absolutely was used in Israels' DOI (1948) and 'Palestines' DOI (1988)

You have provided ZERO evidence to back up your claim. All you end up doing is asking stupid and irrelevant questions.
Then you have the nerve to call Rocco's post verbosity, and ask him to look at the fact. Guess what, he provided facts with link, you didn't.
Therefore, you lost the debate.

Sure he did, but what is the relevance? You are not looking at the facts.

By the time Israel mentioned resolution 181 it was already removing Palestinians from their homes in the territory designated for the Jewish state. It had already moved into the territory designated for the Arab state expelling the Palestinians. It had already attacked Jerusalem and was expelling Palestinians. Over 300,000 Palestinians were refugees before the start of the 1948 war.

Israel had already violated the rights of the non Jewish population, the proposed borders, the designated Arab territory, and the international city of Jerusalem. What part of resolution 181 did Israel accept?

And Tinnie,Israel has violated UN resolutions ever since..steve

 

[theliq]

P F Tinmore, et al,

We will have to agree to - "disagree" - on what the Treaty of Lausanne has to say on the subject; fore it does not mention Palestine; but rather Syria. The Treaty of Sèvres, which predates the Treaty of Lausanne by four years, directly mention Palestine.

Syria was divided by previous agreements between the Allied Powers. The establishment of the territory to which the Mandate of Palestine applies, and the establishment of the accompanying Order in Council, also predates any effect of the Treaty of Lausanne relative to Palestine.

MJB12741, et al,

Yes, this is often confusing.

(COMMENT)

The "Arab" people is referring to the greater heterogeneous cultural (a panethnic group) that is not divided by religious affiliation. When one talks of "Arab Muslims" --- you have restricted yourself to describing a portion of the culture that come post-Islam and temporally after the rise of the following to the Word of the Supreme Being as revealed to the Islamic prophet Muhammad (PBUH) (7th Century and forward to present day).

I find it entirely impractical to discuss the Arab People (inhabitants to the Arabian plate) of the Levant (all the Middle East of today) and the Hebrew People (semi-nomadic Habiru people) as separate and distinct --- especially ten centuries BCE (nearly three thousand years ago).

Most Respectfully,
R

Good post, thanks.

Palestine has a long history of invasions, conquests, and other movements of people. However, there was a core group of people who stayed and put down roots.

The question of who is Palestinian was settled after WWI. All Turkish subjects who normally lived inside Palestine's defined territory were legally Palestinians. Race, religion, and ethnicity were not issues. All became citizens of Palestine.

Any discussion outside of this legal framework is irrelevant.

(COMMENT)

The question of citizenship to the Mandate Territory is an interesting one, but does not change the status of the territory in the least. Whether a person, indigenous or not, was granted Palestinian Citizenship as a matter for the Mandatory power, as the successor government to the Ottoman Empire, to administer make no difference. And if the Mandatory extended citizenship under the post-War Treatise and Mandate by the Powers, such citizenship did not have any impact on the establishment of a sovereign and independent nation. Palestine as an "entity" only existed to the degree and extent as the Allied Powers decided it should exist.

The Treaty of Lausanne did not mention Palestine or citizenship at all. Relative to Section II, Article 30, the Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory detached from Turkey became nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred; --- except that in the Middle East territories [today known as Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Israel, and the Palestine (WB & G)] there were no self-governing states. That control was transferred to the Allied Powers under Mandate by the League of Nations. And the citizenship was established under the Mandate.

Whatever the Palestinian may think today, the status of the territory and the people have changed over time. By 1950 the Palestinians in the West Bank had (by right of self-determination) adopted Jordanian Citizenship through the Parliamentary process; --- while the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip became constituents represented politically by the All Palestine Government (APG) under the protection and control of the Egyptian Military Governorship.

Most Respectfully,
R

The bottom line is that this is Palestine.

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 ​

The mandate was to act in the best interest of the people. (The people being the above mentioned Palestinians.) The mandate was to render administrative assistance and advice until the people could stand alone. (An independent Palestinian state.)

The LoN Covenant provided a means, a goal, and a time frame for the mandate as a temporary assignment.

The Jewish National Home was not to be a separate state. The mandate was to assist immigrant Jews in obtaining Palestinian citizenship where they would have equal rights to the other citizens.

The creation of Israel was a unilateral move that had nothing to do with the mandate.

A Jewish national homeland in Israel was established legally & ethically by a vote of the member nations of the UN whereas all Muslim lands are stolen lands conquered by force whereby the indiginous populations were forced to convert, leave or be killed.

Not true.

UN resolution 181 flopped. The creation of Israel was a unilateral move.

Quite CORRECT Tinnie...the previous poster is out of their depth in this threat .....CLEARLY

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is merely a one-sided interpretation of the facts; as the hostile Palestinian sees it (as opposed to various other factions).

Not true.

UN resolution 181 flopped. The creation of Israel was a unilateral move.

(COMMENT)

There are a number of observers (both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian) that would prefer GA Resolution 181(II), 29 November 1947, to be wiped from history. It is simply not that easy. Israel had to complete the Step Preparatory to Independence outlined in the Resolution to the satisfaction of the UN Palestine Commission (UNPC --- the Successor Government).

First, in 1948, the Successor Government to Palestine (UNPC) officially announced (PAL/169 17 May 1948) through UN Channels:

During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented."​

Second, the GA Resolution A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988 which Acknowledges the proclamation of the State of Palestine (See Link A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988) by the Palestine National Council on 15 November 1988, Palestinian Declaration of Independence, make direct reference to Resolution 181(II):

Palestinian Proclamation:

By virtue of the natural, historical and legal right of the Palestinian Arab people to its homeland, Palestine, and of the sacrifices of its succeeding generations in defence of the freedom and independence of that homeland,
Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947, and Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:
The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.​

UN Acknowledgement:

Recalling its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947, in which, inter alia, it called for the establishment of an Arab State and a Jewish State in Palestine,
Aware of the proclamation of the State of Palestine by the Palestine National Council in line with General Assembly resolution 181 (II) and in exercise of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people,​

Third, that in the Letter dated 25 March 1999 from the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General (A/53/879 S/1999/334 25 March 1999), the Palestinians official take the position that:

For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a corpus separatum, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II), as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process.

Israel must comply with United Nations resolutions. It has no power to unilaterally annul any of those resolutions, particularly such a historic resolution as 181 (II). Israel's claim that the resolution is "null and void" is illegal, and it is also inadmissible given the history of the matter.
​

Fourth, that Resolution adopted by the General Assembly 67/19. Status of Palestine in the United Nations (A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012) which Decides to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations --- states: Recalling its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947,​

These four points make it clear that Resolution 181(II) was active and acknowledged by the UN and the Palestinians up to and through the Process used by the Palestinian Authority to achieve both "State" status and membership into key UN organizations, treaties and conventions.

My interpretation is not one held by Israel --- but --- one held by the sole representative of the Palestinian people.

Most Respectfully,
R

Yeah, yeah, you have posted that verbosity before. Look at the facts.

Neither Israel nor Palestine ever accepted resolution 181. By the time Israel mentioned the resolution in its declaration of independence it had already violated all of the major tenets of the resolution. Israel never had any intentions of abiding by resolution 181.

The UN did not lift a finger to defend the resolution from Israel's violations.

Sure, the PLO mentioned resolution 181. What part of it was revived by that? None of it. It is just as dead as it was in 1948.

First off, I've asked you several times in the past to provide a link for the bold.

Second, Rocco and I have provided several links that proves that resolution 181 was valid and absolutely was used in Israels' DOI (1948) and 'Palestines' DOI (1988)

You have provided ZERO evidence to back up your claim. All you end up doing is asking stupid and irrelevant questions.
Then you have the nerve to call Rocco's post verbosity, and ask him to look at the fact. Guess what, he provided facts with link, you didn't.
Therefore, you lost the debate.

Sure he did, but what is the relevance? You are not looking at the facts.

By the time Israel mentioned resolution 181 it was already removing Palestinians from their homes in the territory designated for the Jewish state. It had already moved into the territory designated for the Arab state expelling the Palestinians. It had already attacked Jerusalem and was expelling Palestinians. Over 300,000 Palestinians were refugees before the start of the 1948 war.

Israel had already violated the rights of the non Jewish population, the proposed borders, the designated Arab territory, and the international city of Jerusalem. What part of resolution 181 did Israel accept?

What's the relevance ? Well you keep running around claiming resolution 181 was never used. But Rocco and I have proved you wrong. All you have is deflections.t
BTW, Israel advancing onto land allotted to the Arab state was a result of Jews continuously getting attacked. Arabs massacring/attacking Jews preceded any of what you said.
Either way, irrelevant. Both sides used 181 as a legal basis to declare independence.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

We will have to agree to - "disagree" - on what the Treaty of Lausanne has to say on the subject; fore it does not mention Palestine; but rather Syria. The Treaty of Sèvres, which predates the Treaty of Lausanne by four years, directly mention Palestine.

Syria was divided by previous agreements between the Allied Powers. The establishment of the territory to which the Mandate of Palestine applies, and the establishment of the accompanying Order in Council, also predates any effect of the Treaty of Lausanne relative to Palestine.

MJB12741, et al,

Yes, this is often confusing.

MJB12741, et al,

On this single point I have to agree.

(COMMENT)

I look at it more as the "Arab Palestinian" as opposed to "Muslim Palestinians;" as the "Arab" (the Semitic peoples originated on the Arabian Peninsula) pre-dates the 7th Century "Muslims" by more than a millennium.

The questions becomes:

• How long do a people have to live in a region before they become "indigenous?"
• Is the term "indigenous" a relative term?

Most Respectfully,
R

As always your point is valid. However we know the Israelites occupied the land for thousands of years before Islam began in the 7th century AD. Therefore how can Muslim Palestinians be indigenous to the land except for a possible small percentage of Jews who converted?

(COMMENT)

The "Arab" people is referring to the greater heterogeneous cultural (a panethnic group) that is not divided by religious affiliation. When one talks of "Arab Muslims" --- you have restricted yourself to describing a portion of the culture that come post-Islam and temporally after the rise of the following to the Word of the Supreme Being as revealed to the Islamic prophet Muhammad (PBUH) (7th Century and forward to present day).

I find it entirely impractical to discuss the Arab People (inhabitants to the Arabian plate) of the Levant (all the Middle East of today) and the Hebrew People (semi-nomadic Habiru people) as separate and distinct --- especially ten centuries BCE (nearly three thousand years ago).

Most Respectfully,
R

Good post, thanks.

Palestine has a long history of invasions, conquests, and other movements of people. However, there was a core group of people who stayed and put down roots.

The question of who is Palestinian was settled after WWI. All Turkish subjects who normally lived inside Palestine's defined territory were legally Palestinians. Race, religion, and ethnicity were not issues. All became citizens of Palestine.

Any discussion outside of this legal framework is irrelevant.

(COMMENT)

The question of citizenship to the Mandate Territory is an interesting one, but does not change the status of the territory in the least. Whether a person, indigenous or not, was granted Palestinian Citizenship as a matter for the Mandatory power, as the successor government to the Ottoman Empire, to administer make no difference. And if the Mandatory extended citizenship under the post-War Treatise and Mandate by the Powers, such citizenship did not have any impact on the establishment of a sovereign and independent nation. Palestine as an "entity" only existed to the degree and extent as the Allied Powers decided it should exist.

The Treaty of Lausanne did not mention Palestine or citizenship at all. Relative to Section II, Article 30, the Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory detached from Turkey became nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred; --- except that in the Middle East territories [today known as Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Israel, and the Palestine (WB & G)] there were no self-governing states. That control was transferred to the Allied Powers under Mandate by the League of Nations. And the citizenship was established under the Mandate.

Whatever the Palestinian may think today, the status of the territory and the people have changed over time. By 1950 the Palestinians in the West Bank had (by right of self-determination) adopted Jordanian Citizenship through the Parliamentary process; --- while the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip became constituents represented politically by the All Palestine Government (APG) under the protection and control of the Egyptian Military Governorship.

Most Respectfully,
R

The bottom line is that this is Palestine.

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 ​

The mandate was to act in the best interest of the people. (The people being the above mentioned Palestinians.) The mandate was to render administrative assistance and advice until the people could stand alone. (An independent Palestinian state.)

The LoN Covenant provided a means, a goal, and a time frame for the mandate as a temporary assignment.

The Jewish National Home was not to be a separate state. The mandate was to assist immigrant Jews in obtaining Palestinian citizenship where they would have equal rights to the other citizens.

The creation of Israel was a unilateral move that had nothing to do with the mandate.

Once again you attempt to bestow sovereignty on to Palestine when none existed, the Mandate set in stone the simple fact that it dealt with the mandate for Palestine and not the nation. Under International law of the time the MANDATE FOR PALESTINE bequeathed the land to the Jews of the world for the RESURECTION OF THE NATIONAL HOME OF THE JEWS. It did not give anything to the arab muslims as they had received their allotment with Jordan, Syria and Iraq.
You need to read the Mandate for Palestine to see where it is stated that the Jews will have a separate state.

The Avalon Project The Palestine Mandate


ART. 4.
An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration to assist and take part in the development of the country.
The Zionist organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.


ART. 5.
The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power



ART. 6.
The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes



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


Just a few of the articles that set in stone and CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW the resurrection of Israel

 

[Phoenall]

OK, fair point. I'll allow an Israeli academic, Professor Yehoshua Porath, professor emeritus of Middle East history at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem to do an objective demolition of both Joan Peter's book ( objectivity even agreed by Daniel Pipes himself in the second article) and Daniel Pipe's defence of her "central thesis" read and enjoy:

Mrs. Peters 8217 s Palestine by Yehoshua Porath The New York Review of Books
Mrs. Peters 8217 s Palestine An Exchange by Ronald Sanders and Daniel Pipes The New York Review of Books

More interesting information. Odd that it leaves out so much in the first few paragraphs that I read.

Anyways, the part of aris' post I found interesting is the fact the the UN has a special consideration for a "Palestinian" refugee than any other. For the most part, a 'refugee' has been expelled from a land lived on for many years and/or generations, yet Palestinians only had to be there for two years.

That's just something that makes me go, hmmm.

The two year rule was not made by the UN. Two years from immigration to citizenship was a rule in the Palestinian citizenship order created by the British.

LINK ?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

We will have to agree to - "disagree" - on what the Treaty of Lausanne has to say on the subject; fore it does not mention Palestine; but rather Syria. The Treaty of Sèvres, which predates the Treaty of Lausanne by four years, directly mention Palestine.

Syria was divided by previous agreements between the Allied Powers. The establishment of the territory to which the Mandate of Palestine applies, and the establishment of the accompanying Order in Council, also predates any effect of the Treaty of Lausanne relative to Palestine.

MJB12741, et al,

Yes, this is often confusing.

(COMMENT)

The "Arab" people is referring to the greater heterogeneous cultural (a panethnic group) that is not divided by religious affiliation. When one talks of "Arab Muslims" --- you have restricted yourself to describing a portion of the culture that come post-Islam and temporally after the rise of the following to the Word of the Supreme Being as revealed to the Islamic prophet Muhammad (PBUH) (7th Century and forward to present day).

I find it entirely impractical to discuss the Arab People (inhabitants to the Arabian plate) of the Levant (all the Middle East of today) and the Hebrew People (semi-nomadic Habiru people) as separate and distinct --- especially ten centuries BCE (nearly three thousand years ago).

Most Respectfully,
R

Good post, thanks.

Palestine has a long history of invasions, conquests, and other movements of people. However, there was a core group of people who stayed and put down roots.

The question of who is Palestinian was settled after WWI. All Turkish subjects who normally lived inside Palestine's defined territory were legally Palestinians. Race, religion, and ethnicity were not issues. All became citizens of Palestine.

Any discussion outside of this legal framework is irrelevant.

(COMMENT)

The question of citizenship to the Mandate Territory is an interesting one, but does not change the status of the territory in the least. Whether a person, indigenous or not, was granted Palestinian Citizenship as a matter for the Mandatory power, as the successor government to the Ottoman Empire, to administer make no difference. And if the Mandatory extended citizenship under the post-War Treatise and Mandate by the Powers, such citizenship did not have any impact on the establishment of a sovereign and independent nation. Palestine as an "entity" only existed to the degree and extent as the Allied Powers decided it should exist.

The Treaty of Lausanne did not mention Palestine or citizenship at all. Relative to Section II, Article 30, the Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory detached from Turkey became nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred; --- except that in the Middle East territories [today known as Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Israel, and the Palestine (WB & G)] there were no self-governing states. That control was transferred to the Allied Powers under Mandate by the League of Nations. And the citizenship was established under the Mandate.

Whatever the Palestinian may think today, the status of the territory and the people have changed over time. By 1950 the Palestinians in the West Bank had (by right of self-determination) adopted Jordanian Citizenship through the Parliamentary process; --- while the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip became constituents represented politically by the All Palestine Government (APG) under the protection and control of the Egyptian Military Governorship.

Most Respectfully,
R

The bottom line is that this is Palestine.

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 ​

The mandate was to act in the best interest of the people. (The people being the above mentioned Palestinians.) The mandate was to render administrative assistance and advice until the people could stand alone. (An independent Palestinian state.)

The LoN Covenant provided a means, a goal, and a time frame for the mandate as a temporary assignment.

The Jewish National Home was not to be a separate state. The mandate was to assist immigrant Jews in obtaining Palestinian citizenship where they would have equal rights to the other citizens.

The creation of Israel was a unilateral move that had nothing to do with the mandate.

A Jewish national homeland in Israel was established legally & ethically by a vote of the member nations of the UN whereas all Muslim lands are stolen lands conquered by force whereby the indiginous populations were forced to convert, leave or be killed.

Not true.

UN resolution 181 flopped. The creation of Israel was a unilateral move.

Then the arab muslims cant use it as the basis for their claims, making Palestine a non entity and the arab muslims stateless people again. Israel exists because of CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW that was around in 1920, 1922 and 1924.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is merely a one-sided interpretation of the facts; as the hostile Palestinian sees it (as opposed to various other factions).

Not true.

UN resolution 181 flopped. The creation of Israel was a unilateral move.

(COMMENT)

There are a number of observers (both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian) that would prefer GA Resolution 181(II), 29 November 1947, to be wiped from history. It is simply not that easy. Israel had to complete the Step Preparatory to Independence outlined in the Resolution to the satisfaction of the UN Palestine Commission (UNPC --- the Successor Government).

First, in 1948, the Successor Government to Palestine (UNPC) officially announced (PAL/169 17 May 1948) through UN Channels:

During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented."​

Second, the GA Resolution A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988 which Acknowledges the proclamation of the State of Palestine (See Link A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988) by the Palestine National Council on 15 November 1988, Palestinian Declaration of Independence, make direct reference to Resolution 181(II):

Palestinian Proclamation:

By virtue of the natural, historical and legal right of the Palestinian Arab people to its homeland, Palestine, and of the sacrifices of its succeeding generations in defence of the freedom and independence of that homeland,
Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947, and Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:
The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.​

UN Acknowledgement:

Recalling its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947, in which, inter alia, it called for the establishment of an Arab State and a Jewish State in Palestine,
Aware of the proclamation of the State of Palestine by the Palestine National Council in line with General Assembly resolution 181 (II) and in exercise of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people,​

Third, that in the Letter dated 25 March 1999 from the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General (A/53/879 S/1999/334 25 March 1999), the Palestinians official take the position that:

For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a corpus separatum, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II), as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process.

Israel must comply with United Nations resolutions. It has no power to unilaterally annul any of those resolutions, particularly such a historic resolution as 181 (II). Israel's claim that the resolution is "null and void" is illegal, and it is also inadmissible given the history of the matter.
​

Fourth, that Resolution adopted by the General Assembly 67/19. Status of Palestine in the United Nations (A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012) which Decides to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations --- states: Recalling its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947,​

These four points make it clear that Resolution 181(II) was active and acknowledged by the UN and the Palestinians up to and through the Process used by the Palestinian Authority to achieve both "State" status and membership into key UN organizations, treaties and conventions.

My interpretation is not one held by Israel --- but --- one held by the sole representative of the Palestinian people.

Most Respectfully,
R

Yeah, yeah, you have posted that verbosity before. Look at the facts.

Neither Israel nor Palestine ever accepted resolution 181. By the time Israel mentioned the resolution in its declaration of independence it had already violated all of the major tenets of the resolution. Israel never had any intentions of abiding by resolution 181.

The UN did not lift a finger to defend the resolution from Israel's violations.

Sure, the PLO mentioned resolution 181. What part of it was revived by that? None of it. It is just as dead as it was in 1948.

Totally irrelevant in any case as CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW of 1920, 1922 and 1924 take precedence over 181 and grants the Jews the whole of Palestine, Judea and Samaria. The UN can not repeal International Law so these stand to this day.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

We will have to agree to - "disagree" - on what the Treaty of Lausanne has to say on the subject; fore it does not mention Palestine; but rather Syria. The Treaty of Sèvres, which predates the Treaty of Lausanne by four years, directly mention Palestine.

Syria was divided by previous agreements between the Allied Powers. The establishment of the territory to which the Mandate of Palestine applies, and the establishment of the accompanying Order in Council, also predates any effect of the Treaty of Lausanne relative to Palestine.

Good post, thanks.

Palestine has a long history of invasions, conquests, and other movements of people. However, there was a core group of people who stayed and put down roots.

The question of who is Palestinian was settled after WWI. All Turkish subjects who normally lived inside Palestine's defined territory were legally Palestinians. Race, religion, and ethnicity were not issues. All became citizens of Palestine.

Any discussion outside of this legal framework is irrelevant.

(COMMENT)

The question of citizenship to the Mandate Territory is an interesting one, but does not change the status of the territory in the least. Whether a person, indigenous or not, was granted Palestinian Citizenship as a matter for the Mandatory power, as the successor government to the Ottoman Empire, to administer make no difference. And if the Mandatory extended citizenship under the post-War Treatise and Mandate by the Powers, such citizenship did not have any impact on the establishment of a sovereign and independent nation. Palestine as an "entity" only existed to the degree and extent as the Allied Powers decided it should exist.

The Treaty of Lausanne did not mention Palestine or citizenship at all. Relative to Section II, Article 30, the Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory detached from Turkey became nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred; --- except that in the Middle East territories [today known as Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Israel, and the Palestine (WB & G)] there were no self-governing states. That control was transferred to the Allied Powers under Mandate by the League of Nations. And the citizenship was established under the Mandate.

Whatever the Palestinian may think today, the status of the territory and the people have changed over time. By 1950 the Palestinians in the West Bank had (by right of self-determination) adopted Jordanian Citizenship through the Parliamentary process; --- while the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip became constituents represented politically by the All Palestine Government (APG) under the protection and control of the Egyptian Military Governorship.

Most Respectfully,
R

The bottom line is that this is Palestine.

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 ​

The mandate was to act in the best interest of the people. (The people being the above mentioned Palestinians.) The mandate was to render administrative assistance and advice until the people could stand alone. (An independent Palestinian state.)

The LoN Covenant provided a means, a goal, and a time frame for the mandate as a temporary assignment.

The Jewish National Home was not to be a separate state. The mandate was to assist immigrant Jews in obtaining Palestinian citizenship where they would have equal rights to the other citizens.

The creation of Israel was a unilateral move that had nothing to do with the mandate.

A Jewish national homeland in Israel was established legally & ethically by a vote of the member nations of the UN whereas all Muslim lands are stolen lands conquered by force whereby the indiginous populations were forced to convert, leave or be killed.

Not true.

UN resolution 181 flopped. The creation of Israel was a unilateral move.

Quite CORRECT Tinnie...the previous poster is out of their depth in this threat .....CLEARLY

But the LoN treaties from 1920, 1922 and 1924 which set in stone the creation on Israel entered into CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW. The UN had no legal right to change these laws so 181 was just a paper exercise that the Palestinian arab muslims are now using for their own ends.

 

[MJB12741]

Israel accepted UN resolution 181. The Palestinians rejected it, thus making it non binding. Not too bright those Palestinians, are they?


BBC NEWS In Depth Israel and the Palestinians key documents UN Partition Plan

 

[aris2chat]

Israel accepted UN resolution 181. The Palestinians rejected it, thus making it non binding. Not too bright those Palestinians, are they?


BBC NEWS In Depth Israel and the Palestinians key documents UN Partition Plan

Palestinians can't reject it then demand Israel abide to a non binding resolution.
Palestinians act like the rules or resolutions don't apply to them. If they wish to become a state they need to grow up and act like adults with a measure of common sense and rational thought

 

[Challenger]

P F Tinmore, et al,

We will have to agree to - "disagree" - on what the Treaty of Lausanne has to say on the subject; fore it does not mention Palestine; but rather Syria. The Treaty of Sèvres, which predates the Treaty of Lausanne by four years, directly mention Palestine.

Syria was divided by previous agreements between the Allied Powers. The establishment of the territory to which the Mandate of Palestine applies, and the establishment of the accompanying Order in Council, also predates any effect of the Treaty of Lausanne relative to Palestine.

MJB12741, et al,

Yes, this is often confusing.

As always your point is valid. However we know the Israelites occupied the land for thousands of years before Islam began in the 7th century AD. Therefore how can Muslim Palestinians be indigenous to the land except for a possible small percentage of Jews who converted?

(COMMENT)

The "Arab" people is referring to the greater heterogeneous cultural (a panethnic group) that is not divided by religious affiliation. When one talks of "Arab Muslims" --- you have restricted yourself to describing a portion of the culture that come post-Islam and temporally after the rise of the following to the Word of the Supreme Being as revealed to the Islamic prophet Muhammad (PBUH) (7th Century and forward to present day).

I find it entirely impractical to discuss the Arab People (inhabitants to the Arabian plate) of the Levant (all the Middle East of today) and the Hebrew People (semi-nomadic Habiru people) as separate and distinct --- especially ten centuries BCE (nearly three thousand years ago).

Most Respectfully,
R

Good post, thanks.

Palestine has a long history of invasions, conquests, and other movements of people. However, there was a core group of people who stayed and put down roots.

The question of who is Palestinian was settled after WWI. All Turkish subjects who normally lived inside Palestine's defined territory were legally Palestinians. Race, religion, and ethnicity were not issues. All became citizens of Palestine.

Any discussion outside of this legal framework is irrelevant.

(COMMENT)

The question of citizenship to the Mandate Territory is an interesting one, but does not change the status of the territory in the least. Whether a person, indigenous or not, was granted Palestinian Citizenship as a matter for the Mandatory power, as the successor government to the Ottoman Empire, to administer make no difference. And if the Mandatory extended citizenship under the post-War Treatise and Mandate by the Powers, such citizenship did not have any impact on the establishment of a sovereign and independent nation. Palestine as an "entity" only existed to the degree and extent as the Allied Powers decided it should exist.

The Treaty of Lausanne did not mention Palestine or citizenship at all. Relative to Section II, Article 30, the Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory detached from Turkey became nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred; --- except that in the Middle East territories [today known as Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Israel, and the Palestine (WB & G)] there were no self-governing states. That control was transferred to the Allied Powers under Mandate by the League of Nations. And the citizenship was established under the Mandate.

Whatever the Palestinian may think today, the status of the territory and the people have changed over time. By 1950 the Palestinians in the West Bank had (by right of self-determination) adopted Jordanian Citizenship through the Parliamentary process; --- while the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip became constituents represented politically by the All Palestine Government (APG) under the protection and control of the Egyptian Military Governorship.

Most Respectfully,
R

The bottom line is that this is Palestine.

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 ​

The mandate was to act in the best interest of the people. (The people being the above mentioned Palestinians.) The mandate was to render administrative assistance and advice until the people could stand alone. (An independent Palestinian state.)

The LoN Covenant provided a means, a goal, and a time frame for the mandate as a temporary assignment.

The Jewish National Home was not to be a separate state. The mandate was to assist immigrant Jews in obtaining Palestinian citizenship where they would have equal rights to the other citizens.

The creation of Israel was a unilateral move that had nothing to do with the mandate.

Once again you attempt to bestow sovereignty on to Palestine when none existed, the Mandate set in stone the simple fact that it dealt with the mandate for Palestine and not the nation. Under International law of the time the MANDATE FOR PALESTINE bequeathed the land to the Jews of the world for the RESURECTION OF THE NATIONAL HOME OF THE JEWS. It did not give anything to the arab muslims as they had received their allotment with Jordan, Syria and Iraq.
You need to read the Mandate for Palestine to see where it is stated that the Jews will have a separate state.

The Avalon Project The Palestine Mandate


ART. 4.
An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration to assist and take part in the development of the country.
The Zionist organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.


ART. 5.
The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power



ART. 6.
The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes



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


Just a few of the articles that set in stone and CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW the resurrection of Israel

"National home" does not necesarily mean "Sovereign State"

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

We will have to agree to - "disagree" - on what the Treaty of Lausanne has to say on the subject; fore it does not mention Palestine; but rather Syria. The Treaty of Sèvres, which predates the Treaty of Lausanne by four years, directly mention Palestine.

Syria was divided by previous agreements between the Allied Powers. The establishment of the territory to which the Mandate of Palestine applies, and the establishment of the accompanying Order in Council, also predates any effect of the Treaty of Lausanne relative to Palestine.

MJB12741, et al,

Yes, this is often confusing.

(COMMENT)

The "Arab" people is referring to the greater heterogeneous cultural (a panethnic group) that is not divided by religious affiliation. When one talks of "Arab Muslims" --- you have restricted yourself to describing a portion of the culture that come post-Islam and temporally after the rise of the following to the Word of the Supreme Being as revealed to the Islamic prophet Muhammad (PBUH) (7th Century and forward to present day).

I find it entirely impractical to discuss the Arab People (inhabitants to the Arabian plate) of the Levant (all the Middle East of today) and the Hebrew People (semi-nomadic Habiru people) as separate and distinct --- especially ten centuries BCE (nearly three thousand years ago).

Most Respectfully,
R

Good post, thanks.

Palestine has a long history of invasions, conquests, and other movements of people. However, there was a core group of people who stayed and put down roots.

The question of who is Palestinian was settled after WWI. All Turkish subjects who normally lived inside Palestine's defined territory were legally Palestinians. Race, religion, and ethnicity were not issues. All became citizens of Palestine.

Any discussion outside of this legal framework is irrelevant.

(COMMENT)

The question of citizenship to the Mandate Territory is an interesting one, but does not change the status of the territory in the least. Whether a person, indigenous or not, was granted Palestinian Citizenship as a matter for the Mandatory power, as the successor government to the Ottoman Empire, to administer make no difference. And if the Mandatory extended citizenship under the post-War Treatise and Mandate by the Powers, such citizenship did not have any impact on the establishment of a sovereign and independent nation. Palestine as an "entity" only existed to the degree and extent as the Allied Powers decided it should exist.

The Treaty of Lausanne did not mention Palestine or citizenship at all. Relative to Section II, Article 30, the Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory detached from Turkey became nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred; --- except that in the Middle East territories [today known as Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Israel, and the Palestine (WB & G)] there were no self-governing states. That control was transferred to the Allied Powers under Mandate by the League of Nations. And the citizenship was established under the Mandate.

Whatever the Palestinian may think today, the status of the territory and the people have changed over time. By 1950 the Palestinians in the West Bank had (by right of self-determination) adopted Jordanian Citizenship through the Parliamentary process; --- while the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip became constituents represented politically by the All Palestine Government (APG) under the protection and control of the Egyptian Military Governorship.

Most Respectfully,
R

The bottom line is that this is Palestine.

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 ​

The mandate was to act in the best interest of the people. (The people being the above mentioned Palestinians.) The mandate was to render administrative assistance and advice until the people could stand alone. (An independent Palestinian state.)

The LoN Covenant provided a means, a goal, and a time frame for the mandate as a temporary assignment.

The Jewish National Home was not to be a separate state. The mandate was to assist immigrant Jews in obtaining Palestinian citizenship where they would have equal rights to the other citizens.

The creation of Israel was a unilateral move that had nothing to do with the mandate.

Once again you attempt to bestow sovereignty on to Palestine when none existed, the Mandate set in stone the simple fact that it dealt with the mandate for Palestine and not the nation. Under International law of the time the MANDATE FOR PALESTINE bequeathed the land to the Jews of the world for the RESURECTION OF THE NATIONAL HOME OF THE JEWS. It did not give anything to the arab muslims as they had received their allotment with Jordan, Syria and Iraq.
You need to read the Mandate for Palestine to see where it is stated that the Jews will have a separate state.

The Avalon Project The Palestine Mandate


ART. 4.
An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration to assist and take part in the development of the country.
The Zionist organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.


ART. 5.
The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power



ART. 6.
The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes



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


Just a few of the articles that set in stone and CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW the resurrection of Israel

"National home" does not necesarily mean "Sovereign State"

National home could mean a lot of things, including sovereign state.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

We will have to agree to - "disagree" - on what the Treaty of Lausanne has to say on the subject; fore it does not mention Palestine; but rather Syria. The Treaty of Sèvres, which predates the Treaty of Lausanne by four years, directly mention Palestine.

Syria was divided by previous agreements between the Allied Powers. The establishment of the territory to which the Mandate of Palestine applies, and the establishment of the accompanying Order in Council, also predates any effect of the Treaty of Lausanne relative to Palestine.

MJB12741, et al,

Yes, this is often confusing.

(COMMENT)

The "Arab" people is referring to the greater heterogeneous cultural (a panethnic group) that is not divided by religious affiliation. When one talks of "Arab Muslims" --- you have restricted yourself to describing a portion of the culture that come post-Islam and temporally after the rise of the following to the Word of the Supreme Being as revealed to the Islamic prophet Muhammad (PBUH) (7th Century and forward to present day).

I find it entirely impractical to discuss the Arab People (inhabitants to the Arabian plate) of the Levant (all the Middle East of today) and the Hebrew People (semi-nomadic Habiru people) as separate and distinct --- especially ten centuries BCE (nearly three thousand years ago).

Most Respectfully,
R

Good post, thanks.

Palestine has a long history of invasions, conquests, and other movements of people. However, there was a core group of people who stayed and put down roots.

The question of who is Palestinian was settled after WWI. All Turkish subjects who normally lived inside Palestine's defined territory were legally Palestinians. Race, religion, and ethnicity were not issues. All became citizens of Palestine.

Any discussion outside of this legal framework is irrelevant.

(COMMENT)

The question of citizenship to the Mandate Territory is an interesting one, but does not change the status of the territory in the least. Whether a person, indigenous or not, was granted Palestinian Citizenship as a matter for the Mandatory power, as the successor government to the Ottoman Empire, to administer make no difference. And if the Mandatory extended citizenship under the post-War Treatise and Mandate by the Powers, such citizenship did not have any impact on the establishment of a sovereign and independent nation. Palestine as an "entity" only existed to the degree and extent as the Allied Powers decided it should exist.

The Treaty of Lausanne did not mention Palestine or citizenship at all. Relative to Section II, Article 30, the Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory detached from Turkey became nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred; --- except that in the Middle East territories [today known as Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Israel, and the Palestine (WB & G)] there were no self-governing states. That control was transferred to the Allied Powers under Mandate by the League of Nations. And the citizenship was established under the Mandate.

Whatever the Palestinian may think today, the status of the territory and the people have changed over time. By 1950 the Palestinians in the West Bank had (by right of self-determination) adopted Jordanian Citizenship through the Parliamentary process; --- while the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip became constituents represented politically by the All Palestine Government (APG) under the protection and control of the Egyptian Military Governorship.

Most Respectfully,
R

The bottom line is that this is Palestine.

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 ​

The mandate was to act in the best interest of the people. (The people being the above mentioned Palestinians.) The mandate was to render administrative assistance and advice until the people could stand alone. (An independent Palestinian state.)

The LoN Covenant provided a means, a goal, and a time frame for the mandate as a temporary assignment.

The Jewish National Home was not to be a separate state. The mandate was to assist immigrant Jews in obtaining Palestinian citizenship where they would have equal rights to the other citizens.

The creation of Israel was a unilateral move that had nothing to do with the mandate.

Once again you attempt to bestow sovereignty on to Palestine when none existed, the Mandate set in stone the simple fact that it dealt with the mandate for Palestine and not the nation. Under International law of the time the MANDATE FOR PALESTINE bequeathed the land to the Jews of the world for the RESURECTION OF THE NATIONAL HOME OF THE JEWS. It did not give anything to the arab muslims as they had received their allotment with Jordan, Syria and Iraq.
You need to read the Mandate for Palestine to see where it is stated that the Jews will have a separate state.

The Avalon Project The Palestine Mandate


ART. 4.
An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration to assist and take part in the development of the country.
The Zionist organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.


ART. 5.
The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power



ART. 6.
The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes



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


Just a few of the articles that set in stone and CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW the resurrection of Israel

"National home" does not necesarily mean "Sovereign State"

It did in 1920, 1922 and 1924 if you read the full Mandate for Palestine

 

[RoccoR]

Challenger, et al,

Our friend "Challenger" is correct. The concept of a "National Home" is a greater idea then its subset of a "Sovereign State." It doesn't mean that the concept of a "National Home" does not include a possible subset of a "Sovereign State."

P F Tinmore, et al,

We will have to agree to - "disagree" - on what the Treaty of Lausanne has to say on the subject; fore it does not mention Palestine; but rather Syria. The Treaty of Sèvres, which predates the Treaty of Lausanne by four years, directly mention Palestine.

Syria was divided by previous agreements between the Allied Powers. The establishment of the territory to which the Mandate of Palestine applies, and the establishment of the accompanying Order in Council, also predates any effect of the Treaty of Lausanne relative to Palestine.

MJB12741, et al,

Yes, this is often confusing.

(COMMENT)

The "Arab" people is referring to the greater heterogeneous cultural (a panethnic group) that is not divided by religious affiliation. When one talks of "Arab Muslims" --- you have restricted yourself to describing a portion of the culture that come post-Islam and temporally after the rise of the following to the Word of the Supreme Being as revealed to the Islamic prophet Muhammad (PBUH) (7th Century and forward to present day).

I find it entirely impractical to discuss the Arab People (inhabitants to the Arabian plate) of the Levant (all the Middle East of today) and the Hebrew People (semi-nomadic Habiru people) as separate and distinct --- especially ten centuries BCE (nearly three thousand years ago).

Most Respectfully,
R

Good post, thanks.

Palestine has a long history of invasions, conquests, and other movements of people. However, there was a core group of people who stayed and put down roots.

The question of who is Palestinian was settled after WWI. All Turkish subjects who normally lived inside Palestine's defined territory were legally Palestinians. Race, religion, and ethnicity were not issues. All became citizens of Palestine.

Any discussion outside of this legal framework is irrelevant.

(COMMENT)

The question of citizenship to the Mandate Territory is an interesting one, but does not change the status of the territory in the least. Whether a person, indigenous or not, was granted Palestinian Citizenship as a matter for the Mandatory power, as the successor government to the Ottoman Empire, to administer make no difference. And if the Mandatory extended citizenship under the post-War Treatise and Mandate by the Powers, such citizenship did not have any impact on the establishment of a sovereign and independent nation. Palestine as an "entity" only existed to the degree and extent as the Allied Powers decided it should exist.

The Treaty of Lausanne did not mention Palestine or citizenship at all. Relative to Section II, Article 30, the Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory detached from Turkey became nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred; --- except that in the Middle East territories [today known as Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Israel, and the Palestine (WB & G)] there were no self-governing states. That control was transferred to the Allied Powers under Mandate by the League of Nations. And the citizenship was established under the Mandate.

Whatever the Palestinian may think today, the status of the territory and the people have changed over time. By 1950 the Palestinians in the West Bank had (by right of self-determination) adopted Jordanian Citizenship through the Parliamentary process; --- while the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip became constituents represented politically by the All Palestine Government (APG) under the protection and control of the Egyptian Military Governorship.

Most Respectfully,
R

The bottom line is that this is Palestine.

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 ​

The mandate was to act in the best interest of the people. (The people being the above mentioned Palestinians.) The mandate was to render administrative assistance and advice until the people could stand alone. (An independent Palestinian state.)

The LoN Covenant provided a means, a goal, and a time frame for the mandate as a temporary assignment.

The Jewish National Home was not to be a separate state. The mandate was to assist immigrant Jews in obtaining Palestinian citizenship where they would have equal rights to the other citizens.

The creation of Israel was a unilateral move that had nothing to do with the mandate.

Once again you attempt to bestow sovereignty on to Palestine when none existed, the Mandate set in stone the simple fact that it dealt with the mandate for Palestine and not the nation. Under International law of the time the MANDATE FOR PALESTINE bequeathed the land to the Jews of the world for the RESURECTION OF THE NATIONAL HOME OF THE JEWS. It did not give anything to the arab muslims as they had received their allotment with Jordan, Syria and Iraq.
You need to read the Mandate for Palestine to see where it is stated that the Jews will have a separate state.

The Avalon Project The Palestine Mandate

ART. 4.
An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration to assist and take part in the development of the country.
The Zionist organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.

ART. 5.
The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power

ART. 6.
The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes

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

Just a few of the articles that set in stone and CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW the resurrection of Israel

"National home" does not necessarily mean "Sovereign State"

(OBSERVATION)

In the US, we have a type of territory known as an "Indian Reservation;" --- independent sovereign land ("a domestic dependent nation") and internationally considered an autonomous administrative division (AAD), which are managed by Native American tribes under the US Bureau of Indian Affairs. This is an example as an alternative to a complete "sovereign state."

(COMMENT)

The use of an AAD has been considered the preferred type of alternative in cases where the parent sovereign nation does not wish to subdivide a large homogenous population and territory into clearly identifiable demographic segments having similar requirements, and economic characteristics. The complete separation, segmentation and partition is the more applicable choice when the two population are incompatible and maintain unreconcilable differences. In such cases where the minority (the Jewish) is completely surrounded by a hostile majority population (Arabs) --- complete partition is preferred in order to preserve the minority from extinction by the majority.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[MJB12741]

Israel accepted UN resolution 181. The Palestinians rejected it, thus making it non binding. Not too bright those Palestinians, are they?


BBC NEWS In Depth Israel and the Palestinians key documents UN Partition Plan

Palestinians can't reject it then demand Israel abide to a non binding resolution.
Palestinians act like the rules or resolutions don't apply to them. If they wish to become a state they need to grow up and act like adults with a measure of common sense and rational thought

The Palis screwed themselves but good on UN 181. And have been screwing themselves ever since. First Arafat & now Hamas. Long live Hamas!

 

[P F Tinmore]

Challenger, et al,

Our friend "Challenger" is correct. The concept of a "National Home" is a greater idea then its subset of a "Sovereign State." It doesn't mean that the concept of a "National Home" does not include a possible subset of a "Sovereign State."

P F Tinmore, et al,

We will have to agree to - "disagree" - on what the Treaty of Lausanne has to say on the subject; fore it does not mention Palestine; but rather Syria. The Treaty of Sèvres, which predates the Treaty of Lausanne by four years, directly mention Palestine.

Syria was divided by previous agreements between the Allied Powers. The establishment of the territory to which the Mandate of Palestine applies, and the establishment of the accompanying Order in Council, also predates any effect of the Treaty of Lausanne relative to Palestine.

Good post, thanks.

Palestine has a long history of invasions, conquests, and other movements of people. However, there was a core group of people who stayed and put down roots.

The question of who is Palestinian was settled after WWI. All Turkish subjects who normally lived inside Palestine's defined territory were legally Palestinians. Race, religion, and ethnicity were not issues. All became citizens of Palestine.

Any discussion outside of this legal framework is irrelevant.

(COMMENT)

The question of citizenship to the Mandate Territory is an interesting one, but does not change the status of the territory in the least. Whether a person, indigenous or not, was granted Palestinian Citizenship as a matter for the Mandatory power, as the successor government to the Ottoman Empire, to administer make no difference. And if the Mandatory extended citizenship under the post-War Treatise and Mandate by the Powers, such citizenship did not have any impact on the establishment of a sovereign and independent nation. Palestine as an "entity" only existed to the degree and extent as the Allied Powers decided it should exist.

The Treaty of Lausanne did not mention Palestine or citizenship at all. Relative to Section II, Article 30, the Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory detached from Turkey became nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred; --- except that in the Middle East territories [today known as Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Israel, and the Palestine (WB & G)] there were no self-governing states. That control was transferred to the Allied Powers under Mandate by the League of Nations. And the citizenship was established under the Mandate.

Whatever the Palestinian may think today, the status of the territory and the people have changed over time. By 1950 the Palestinians in the West Bank had (by right of self-determination) adopted Jordanian Citizenship through the Parliamentary process; --- while the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip became constituents represented politically by the All Palestine Government (APG) under the protection and control of the Egyptian Military Governorship.

Most Respectfully,
R

The bottom line is that this is Palestine.

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 ​

The mandate was to act in the best interest of the people. (The people being the above mentioned Palestinians.) The mandate was to render administrative assistance and advice until the people could stand alone. (An independent Palestinian state.)

The LoN Covenant provided a means, a goal, and a time frame for the mandate as a temporary assignment.

The Jewish National Home was not to be a separate state. The mandate was to assist immigrant Jews in obtaining Palestinian citizenship where they would have equal rights to the other citizens.

The creation of Israel was a unilateral move that had nothing to do with the mandate.

Once again you attempt to bestow sovereignty on to Palestine when none existed, the Mandate set in stone the simple fact that it dealt with the mandate for Palestine and not the nation. Under International law of the time the MANDATE FOR PALESTINE bequeathed the land to the Jews of the world for the RESURECTION OF THE NATIONAL HOME OF THE JEWS. It did not give anything to the arab muslims as they had received their allotment with Jordan, Syria and Iraq.
You need to read the Mandate for Palestine to see where it is stated that the Jews will have a separate state.

The Avalon Project The Palestine Mandate

ART. 4.
An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration to assist and take part in the development of the country.
The Zionist organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.

ART. 5.
The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power

ART. 6.
The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes

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

Just a few of the articles that set in stone and CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW the resurrection of Israel

"National home" does not necessarily mean "Sovereign State"

(OBSERVATION)

In the US, we have a type of territory known as an "Indian Reservation;" --- independent sovereign land ("a domestic dependent nation") and internationally considered an autonomous administrative division (AAD), which are managed by Native American tribes under the US Bureau of Indian Affairs. This is an example as an alternative to a complete "sovereign state."

(COMMENT)

The use of an AAD has been considered the preferred type of alternative in cases where the parent sovereign nation does not wish to subdivide a large homogenous population and territory into clearly identifiable demographic segments having similar requirements, and economic characteristics. The complete separation, segmentation and partition is the more applicable choice when the two population are incompatible and maintain unreconcilable differences. In such cases where the minority (the Jewish) is completely surrounded by a hostile majority population (Arabs) --- complete partition is preferred in order to preserve the minority from extinction by the majority.

Most Respectfully,
R

...complete partition is preferred...​

Partition of what, Rocco?

 

[montelatici]

Challenger, et al,

Our friend "Challenger" is correct. The concept of a "National Home" is a greater idea then its subset of a "Sovereign State." It doesn't mean that the concept of a "National Home" does not include a possible subset of a "Sovereign State."

P F Tinmore, et al,

We will have to agree to - "disagree" - on what the Treaty of Lausanne has to say on the subject; fore it does not mention Palestine; but rather Syria. The Treaty of Sèvres, which predates the Treaty of Lausanne by four years, directly mention Palestine.

Syria was divided by previous agreements between the Allied Powers. The establishment of the territory to which the Mandate of Palestine applies, and the establishment of the accompanying Order in Council, also predates any effect of the Treaty of Lausanne relative to Palestine.

Good post, thanks.

Palestine has a long history of invasions, conquests, and other movements of people. However, there was a core group of people who stayed and put down roots.

The question of who is Palestinian was settled after WWI. All Turkish subjects who normally lived inside Palestine's defined territory were legally Palestinians. Race, religion, and ethnicity were not issues. All became citizens of Palestine.

Any discussion outside of this legal framework is irrelevant.

(COMMENT)

The question of citizenship to the Mandate Territory is an interesting one, but does not change the status of the territory in the least. Whether a person, indigenous or not, was granted Palestinian Citizenship as a matter for the Mandatory power, as the successor government to the Ottoman Empire, to administer make no difference. And if the Mandatory extended citizenship under the post-War Treatise and Mandate by the Powers, such citizenship did not have any impact on the establishment of a sovereign and independent nation. Palestine as an "entity" only existed to the degree and extent as the Allied Powers decided it should exist.

The Treaty of Lausanne did not mention Palestine or citizenship at all. Relative to Section II, Article 30, the Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory detached from Turkey became nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred; --- except that in the Middle East territories [today known as Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Israel, and the Palestine (WB & G)] there were no self-governing states. That control was transferred to the Allied Powers under Mandate by the League of Nations. And the citizenship was established under the Mandate.

Whatever the Palestinian may think today, the status of the territory and the people have changed over time. By 1950 the Palestinians in the West Bank had (by right of self-determination) adopted Jordanian Citizenship through the Parliamentary process; --- while the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip became constituents represented politically by the All Palestine Government (APG) under the protection and control of the Egyptian Military Governorship.

Most Respectfully,
R

The bottom line is that this is Palestine.

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 ​

The mandate was to act in the best interest of the people. (The people being the above mentioned Palestinians.) The mandate was to render administrative assistance and advice until the people could stand alone. (An independent Palestinian state.)

The LoN Covenant provided a means, a goal, and a time frame for the mandate as a temporary assignment.

The Jewish National Home was not to be a separate state. The mandate was to assist immigrant Jews in obtaining Palestinian citizenship where they would have equal rights to the other citizens.

The creation of Israel was a unilateral move that had nothing to do with the mandate.

Once again you attempt to bestow sovereignty on to Palestine when none existed, the Mandate set in stone the simple fact that it dealt with the mandate for Palestine and not the nation. Under International law of the time the MANDATE FOR PALESTINE bequeathed the land to the Jews of the world for the RESURECTION OF THE NATIONAL HOME OF THE JEWS. It did not give anything to the arab muslims as they had received their allotment with Jordan, Syria and Iraq.
You need to read the Mandate for Palestine to see where it is stated that the Jews will have a separate state.

The Avalon Project The Palestine Mandate

ART. 4.
An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration to assist and take part in the development of the country.
The Zionist organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.

ART. 5.
The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power

ART. 6.
The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes

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

Just a few of the articles that set in stone and CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW the resurrection of Israel

"National home" does not necessarily mean "Sovereign State"

(OBSERVATION)

In the US, we have a type of territory known as an "Indian Reservation;" --- independent sovereign land ("a domestic dependent nation") and internationally considered an autonomous administrative division (AAD), which are managed by Native American tribes under the US Bureau of Indian Affairs. This is an example as an alternative to a complete "sovereign state."

(COMMENT)

The use of an AAD has been considered the preferred type of alternative in cases where the parent sovereign nation does not wish to subdivide a large homogenous population and territory into clearly identifiable demographic segments having similar requirements, and economic characteristics. The complete separation, segmentation and partition is the more applicable choice when the two population are incompatible and maintain unreconcilable differences. In such cases where the minority (the Jewish) is completely surrounded by a hostile majority population (Arabs) --- complete partition is preferred in order to preserve the minority from extinction by the majority.

Most Respectfully,
R

They are called Bantustans.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

Nonsense. You've misunderstood the entire concept.

They are called Bantustans.

(COMMENT)

The term "Bantustan" is an apartheid term. An attempt by the pro-Palestinians to make an association with a territory set aside as part of the policy or system of segregation on grounds of race (nonexistent racial difference between Israelis 'vs' Palestinians). When in fact the entire reason (multiple) for the separation, partition, and quarantine is actually based on the protection and preservation of a minority culture (Jewish) --- a majority group (Arab) attempting the hostile domination in favor of its members over a minority group (Israelis) which have been historically --- the disadvantaged culture attempting to establish a safe haven and permanent homeland for the protection of the group.

The conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians is a rare example of the reverse-Apartheid in which the regional Majority Population (multiple Arab Jihadist and Fedayeen) are attempting to forcibly dislodge, dissect, and disburse a surrounded Minority Population attempting to establish, protect and defend, a National Home as originally conceived by the Principle Allied Powers nearly a century ago.

Most Respectfully,
R