Widening Of The Buffer Zone

[Hossfly]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are making a statement of latent intent; a judgment. I don't know that there is a direct link between the Arab Palestinian self-governance and immigration (alla 1925 thru 1930). The link is between the stated intent (the establishment of a Jewish National Home) and the immigration policy of those Jews willing to assist in building the national home.

The Palestinians were not allowed to exercise sovereignty because they would change immigration and other policies that they opposed.

(COMMENT)

I honestly believe that the assessment of the Arab Palestinian was such that the Allied Powers did not think of them as very capable for self-governance.

Most Respectfully,
R

Do you have a link for that?

I think that the mandate's stupid policies would go down the toilet if the Palestinians were allowed to vote on them.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Now we are just quibbling over derivative authority versus statutory authority.

In all matters relating to the Administration of Palestine, the authority was derivative; even the authority of the Mandatory (UK).

From Rocco's post:

The "Jewish Agency" (JA) was a prerequisite established under Article 4, The Mandate For Palestine; established in 1929. The JA had to be accredited by the World Zionist Organization (WZO) under the Article 4, "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."​

It was an advisory organization. It had no authority. It was a part of the mandate and had no function absent the mandate.

(COMMENT)

In January 1947, the Jewish Agency was unequivocally the designated representatives to assist the UN Palestine Commission in the establishment of an Independent State. This was completely outside the scope of the Mandate. That is because it was amid the transition.

Your argument is now convoluted. With regard to True Authority, you are correct. The Jewish Agency had no true authority any more than the Arab Higher Committee had any authority. All authority was administered and delegated to the Mandatory. That does not diminish that contributions made by the Jewish Agency in the utimate establishment of the Jewish National Home.

In terms of authority to exercise the right of self-determination, the Jewish Agency, had all the authority required to complete the Steps Preparatory to Independence for the Provisional Government to Declare Independence; much much more than that of the Arab Palestinian; this is self evident in the face of the fact that it was accomplished. A goal towards nationalism which the Arab Palestinian were unable to attain.

You want to call it "advisory" --- so be it. In reality --- they built a nation that endures to this day and is self-governing and economically stable and sound. What did the Arab Palestinian accomplish?

You as a proPalestinian can criticize the Israeli all you want, but in the end, they have a nation working towards peace. In contrast, the Arab Palestinian has a dysfunctional operations that is monetarily parasitic and Jihadist in nature working towards the continuation of conflict.

Most Respectfully,
R

Indeed, and all of that was in violation of the inalienable rights of the native population.

You know, the Palestinians, that the lying sacks of shit in Israel have always claimed did not exist.

Not as they were applied in 1920 when the Mandate was undertaken, and the only Palestinians at that time were the Jews. The arab muslims called themselves Syrians.

Where do you keep getting all of your lies? (link?)

Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​

Article 30 is of a great significance. It constituted a declaration of existing international law and the standard practice of states. This was despite the absence of a definite international law rule of state succession under which the nationals of predecessor state could ipso facto acquire the nationality of the successor.129 “As a rule, however, States have conferred their nationality on the former nationals of the predecessor State.”130 In practice, almost all peace treaties concluded between the Allies and other states at the end of World War I embodied nationality provisions similar to those of the Treaty of Lausanne. The inhabitants of Palestine, as the successors of this territory, henceforth acquired Palestinian nationality even if there was no treaty with Turkey.

The Treaty confirmed the previous practice whereby inhabitants were effectively regarded as Palestinians. To be sure, most of the Treaty’s nationality rules were later embodied in the 1925 Palestinian Citizenship Order and became part of the country’s law.

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel

It simply said "Turkish subjects" without specifying any religion. Most of those subjects were Muslim, then Christians, then Jews respectively. They were all Palestinians.

MANDATE FOR PALESTINE citizens, not nation, state or country of Palestine. The arab muslims called the Jews Palestinians ( more correctly balestinians because they could not pronounce the P ) as a derogatory name as they had done since 627 C.E. when Mohamed declared a fatwah on them. Read the MANDATE FOR PALESTINE that sets out special treatment for the Jews and sets them higher than the arab muslims.

It is a typical mistake to believe that the mandate was a place, It was not. It was a temporarily assigned administration that held Palestine in trust.

The mandate charter, itself, called Palestine a country numerous times.[/QUOTE]





WRONG it stated from the first that it was the MANDATE FOR PALESTINE hereinafter called Palestine. It does not say state, nation or country of Palestine once

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

It is even a bigger mistake to think that you, and you alone, understand the intent and purpose of the Mandate for Palestine.

It is a typical mistake to believe that the mandate was a place, It was not. It was a temporarily assigned administration that held Palestine in trust.

The mandate charter, itself, called Palestine a country numerous times.

(COMMENT)

Calling a plot of land, a territory --- by the name of "country" does not infer any special quality to it or the people associated with it. To imply that it does, is an exercise in foolishness.

Palestine was a subsection of territory, a geopolitical space, within the overall land that the Ottoman Empire remanded to the Allied Powers at the end of the War. It was a territory defined at the discretion --- and for the convenience of --- the Allied Powers; and not a specific land that was formerly autonomous, self-governing, or a former political subdivision of the Empire. Any such suggestion that "Palestine" (within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers) had some special status conferred upon it by the previous sovereign --- or the --- successor government, is more than ridiculous. The territory (formerly under the Mandate) was historically contained within the Vilayet of Syria, under the Imperial hand of the Provincial Government in Damascus.

At no time during the 800 years of Ottoman Control, prior to the umbrella of the Mandate, did this territory have sovereignty unto itself or demonstrate independence. And nothing in the Treaties of Sevres or Lausanne altered that status. In fact, the Treaty of Lausanne does not confer any special recognition upon "Palestine." None at all.

Most Respectfully,
R

We have heard that Israeli bullshit a gazillion times.

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 ​

To which mandate are you referring as there was more than one in force. There was the MANDATE FOR PALESTINE and then there was the BRITISH MANDATE two distinct and separate entities. And neither made the claim that Palestine was a state, nation or country. As for the nationality law that was enacted by the mandate not by Palestine, to give the residents legal identities when travelling abroad. That is why the passports all stated BRITISH, as that was the controlling nation at the time. Try thinking of International law as it stood in 1920 and not as it stands today and you might see it clearly

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

One cannot "cherry-pick" a strategy from a single Meeting Session and then spread it around as if it were policy.

P F Tinmore, et al,

It is even a bigger mistake to think that you, and you alone, understand the intent and purpose of the Mandate for Palestine.

It is a typical mistake to believe that the mandate was a place, It was not. It was a temporarily assigned administration that held Palestine in trust.

The mandate charter, itself, called Palestine a country numerous times.

(COMMENT)

Calling a plot of land, a territory --- by the name of "country" does not infer any special quality to it or the people associated with it. To imply that it does, is an exercise in foolishness.

Palestine was a subsection of territory, a geopolitical space, within the overall land that the Ottoman Empire remanded to the Allied Powers at the end of the War. It was a territory defined at the discretion --- and for the convenience of --- the Allied Powers; and not a specific land that was formerly autonomous, self-governing, or a former political subdivision of the Empire. Any such suggestion that "Palestine" (within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers) had some special status conferred upon it by the previous sovereign --- or the --- successor government, is more than ridiculous. The territory (formerly under the Mandate) was historically contained within the Vilayet of Syria, under the Imperial hand of the Provincial Government in Damascus.

At no time during the 800 years of Ottoman Control, prior to the umbrella of the Mandate, did this territory have sovereignty unto itself or demonstrate independence. And nothing in the Treaties of Sevres or Lausanne altered that status. In fact, the Treaty of Lausanne does not confer any special recognition upon "Palestine." None at all.

Most Respectfully,
R

We have heard that Israeli bullshit a gazillion times.

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 ​

(COMMENT)

In any complex issue over an extended period, it will be easy to find conflicting ideas expressed. And it will be easy to cherry-pick those ideas and formulate an argument. Having said that, and from the very same LoN 32d Session, one might find this having been stated:

"The aim is the termination of the mandate in respect of Trans-Jordan and the greater part of Palestine, with a view to the creation of two new independent sovereign States--the one Arab and the other Jewish--and the reservation of certain places in Palestine, some permanently, others possibly only temporarily, under British mandate, such mandate involving modifications of the existing mandate." - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937

I believe that on the basis of partition and the establishment of a Jewish State, small as that is, it will be possible to find accommodation for far more refugees than by a continuation of the present mandatory regime. For under that regime every move to introduce more refugees will be met with resistance on the part of the Arabs. On the other hand, if a Jewish State is set up under a Jewish Government, which I believe would be a good and tolerant Government, it will, if the Arabs and the rest of the country are granted independent freedom, be easier to induce the Arabs to allow Jews even to enter their areas. I believe that, if this question is once settled in a clear and definite manner, the relations between the Arabs and the Jews will begin to improve. I am therefore quite satisfied in my own mind that, looking at the Palestine question as a possible solution to the world Jewish problem, there is more hope for the Jews in partition than by a continuation of the system in operation during the last few years. - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937 ​

Neither your quote, nor the one I just posted, represent a hard policy decision. Merely they represent the various aspects to which the developments of the Middle East Question of Palestine were covered, and the open dialog on the issues as seen at that time (1937).

Most Respectively,
R

Mandate for Palestine

Yet you continuously imply that the Palestinians have no say in what happens in their country.

The Treaty of Lausanne required the newly created states that acquired the territory to pay annuities on the Ottoman public debt, and to assume responsibility for the administration of concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans. A dispute regarding the status of the territories was settled by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. It was decided that Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties. In its Judgment No. 5, The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, the Permanent Court of International Justice also decided that Palestine was responsible as the successor state for concessions granted by Ottoman authorities. The Courts of Palestine and Great Britain decided that title to the properties shown on the Ottoman Civil list had been ceded to the government of Palestine as an allied successor state.[16]

State of Palestine - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia​

In fact it is the foreigners who have no legitimate say in Palestine. Everything you post is about foreigners.

So this means the arab muslims have no say either as they are foreign to the land