("Wipe off the map" XV) Iranian military official: We have 100,000 missiles in Lebanon ready to hit

[RoccoR]

Sunni Man, et al,

This comes up at least twice a week. You guys are not using the right language and so keep coming up with the same wrong answer.

UN gave Israeli an offer of statehood before Palestinians left, except to sell their land to jews

It wasn't the UN's land to give away. .....

(COMMENT)

The territory was was taken under the care via Article 16 of the Lausanne Treaty. Article basically sets the conditions when the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic relinquished the rights and title for the territory, including what was designated as Palestine, into the hands of the Allied Powers.

Clearly, in no way shape or form does Article 16 make any consideration for the Arabs formerly under the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration and place in one of the various Mandates.

And, you are again confusing the assignment of "sovereignty" and the "civil ownership" of the land. Don't get the two confused.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[aris2chat]

UN gave Israeli an offer of statehood before Palestinians left, except to sell their land to jews

It wasn't the UN's land to give away. .....

It became LoN>Mandate>UN land with the break up of the Ottoman empire

Armistice of Mudros
Treaty of Sèvres
Treaty of Lausanne

By your argument no state in the middle east should exist. The break up of the Ottoman Empire gave each country the right to exist. No arab country should have land of their own to claim. No arab land

 

[Shusha]

It wasn't the UN's land to give away. .....

Okay. The problem with the Arab slash Palestinian slash Muslim point of view on this forum, and often in the international community, is that they make statements like this without thinking the idea through to its logical conclusion and have only vague notions of where their thoughts might lead. As represented here.

So, lets say we agree that it wasn't the UN's land to give away. (And we do agree. The UN never "owned" the land, was never sovereign over the land and was required, by law, to maintain the principles of law in the transfer of sovereignty from one sovereign to another).

So whose land was it? Who did it belong to? Which group of people held sovereignty over that territory? How is territory transferred from one sovereign to another? What principles of law apply?

There is this truly odd understanding in the international community that sovereignty of the entire territory belonged vaguely to the "Arabs" who resided on some of the territory. This despite the fact that the Jewish people also resided on some of the territory.

So, I challenge those who would make these claims to think these claims through:

To whom did the legal sovereignty of this particular territory transfer after the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire (the former legal sovereign)?

I would caution you to be very, very specific in your use of language and to justify your choice of language.

Did it pass to the residents? Define who would be considered and who would not be considered a resident.

Did it pass to the "people of the place"? What does this mean? Define it.

Did it pass to the groups of indigenous peoples there? Define 'indigenous'.

Did it pass to those who owned land in the territory?

Did it pass to the ethnic group which was the majority at the time?


Also think through your understanding of how a territory passes from one sovereign to another:

If a land is conquered, does the land pass to a new sovereign?

If a land is colonized, do the colonizers become the new sovereigns?

If a land is ethnically cleansed, does the ethnicity cleansed lose rights to sovereignty?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Excellent questions, thank you.

It wasn't the UN's land to give away. .....

Okay. The problem with the Arab slash Palestinian slash Muslim point of view on this forum, and often in the international community, is that they make statements like this without thinking the idea through to its logical conclusion and have only vague notions of where their thoughts might lead. As represented here.

So, lets say we agree that it wasn't the UN's land to give away. (And we do agree. The UN never "owned" the land, was never sovereign over the land and was required, by law, to maintain the principles of law in the transfer of sovereignty from one sovereign to another).

I agree here also. The UN has never "owned" any land. This also applies to the LoN and by extension their Mandates. Neither the LoN nor Britain annexed or otherwise laid claim to the land under their trust.

So whose land was it? Who did it belong to? Which group of people held sovereignty over that territory? How is territory transferred from one sovereign to another? What principles of law apply?

Land can only be transferred by treaty. In this case it was the Treaty of Lausanne.

There is this truly odd understanding in the international community that sovereignty of the entire territory belonged vaguely to the "Arabs" who resided on some of the territory. This despite the fact that the Jewish people also resided on some of the territory.

Using terms like "the Jews" or "the Arabs" just confuse the Issue. Some Jews and some Arabs became citizens of Palestine and the rest did not.

So, I challenge those who would make these claims to think these claims through:

To whom did the legal sovereignty of this particular territory transfer after the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire (the former legal sovereign)?

I would caution you to be very, very specific in your use of language and to justify your choice of language.

Did it pass to the residents? Define who would be considered and who would not be considered a resident.

Did it pass to the "people of the place"? What does this mean? Define it.

This was very specific.

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.”​

This was reiterated by the by the Palestinian Citizenship Order of 1925.

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​

There is no question to who is Palestinian. And, of course, it is the people who are sovereign inside a defined territory.

Did it pass to the groups of indigenous peoples there? Define 'indigenous'.

Indigenous would be a tough thing to pin down. I mean... do you go back to the cave man? Palestine was invaded and conquered many times It was the center of world trade routes for thousands of years. Many people came and went. However, there was a core group of people who stayed and put down roots. These are the people who built the cities and farmed the land. There were many hundreds of villages most of which pre-dated Ottoman times, i.e. they had been there a long time. They were Muslims, Christians, and Jews who had lived together for centuries. These are the people who legally became Palestinians by the Treaty of Lausanne.

Did it pass to those who owned land in the territory?

Private land ownership was irrelevant.

Did it pass to the ethnic group which was the majority at the time?

Race, religion, and ethnicity were irrelevant. Everyone was equal.

Also think through your understanding of how a territory passes from one sovereign to another:

If a land is conquered, does the land pass to a new sovereign?

If a land is colonized, do the colonizers become the new sovereigns?

If a land is ethnically cleansed, does the ethnicity cleansed lose rights to sovereignty?

No, no, and no.

 

[aris2chat]

arabs only had to live in the mandate for two year to be able to register as palestinian in the refugee camps

did not need to be citizen

 

[HenryBHough]

that would be a "high horse" , wouldnt it?

That would depend on how generously He shared......

 

[Hollie]

The OP seems to reinforce the absurdity of the Hizbollocks franchise of Islamic Terrorism Intl., Inc., being a part of the Lebanese government.

The unilateral decision by the Iranian lackeys in Lebanon , i.e., Hizbollocks, to initiate a war with Israel back in 2006 was a disaster for Lebanon. Now, with the Hizz apparently importing iranian munitions, it makes the Lebanese parliament something of a laughable joke allowing an Islamic Death Cult to be armed by a foreign power.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is "interpretation" is so wrong on so many levels. Neither the Covenant or the Treaty granted any sovereignty or independence to the Arab Palestinian.

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.”​

This was reiterated by the by the Palestinian Citizenship Order of 1925.

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​

There is no question to who is Palestinian. And, of course, it is the people who are sovereign inside a defined territory.

(COMMENT)

Article 30 only impacts "citizenship;" not sovereignty.

The "territory of Palestine" and the citizenship to "Palestinian;" were the Palestine as defined in 1922 by the Order in Council.

The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine."
​

Article 30 of the Treaty was meant to compliment Paragraph 2 Palestine Legislative Council Election Order, 1922; with the Covenant, the Mandate, the Order in Council, the Legislative Council, ALL having been written by the same authorities (the Allied Powers). ALL these various written authorities were crafted to dovetail together with the understanding of there time; AND not to square (necessarily) with the mad interpretation of of a pro-Palestinian.

"Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the date of commencement of this Order."

"All persons of other than Turkish nationality habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the said date, who shall within two calendar months of the said date make application for Palestinian citizenship in such form and before such officer as may be prescribed by the High Commissioner.
​

Article 30 of the Lausanne Treaty does not trump Article 16 of the Treaty; The Treaty does not record the transfer of all Title and Rights from the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic --- only to transfer it again to another constituency. The right to become a "citizen" under the Mandate" does not imply the granting of sovereignty or independence. The use of the term "Palestine" does not imply the creation of any autonomous state. The Citizenship Order of 1925 (amended several time before the war) DID NOT change the protocols under which the Mandatory operated; merely clarified them.

The UN has never "owned" any land. This also applies to the LoN and by extension their Mandates. Neither the LoN nor Britain annexed or otherwise laid claim to the land under their trust.

(COMMENT)

This is so unhelpful and poorly interpreted in terms of what was possible and what was not possible; relative to who had what authority when. If you example the March 1946 Treaty of Alliance between the His Majesty (UK) and the Emir (Trans-Jordan), you will find Article 1: (First Clause)

His Majesty The King recognizes Trans-Jordan as a fully independent State and His Highness The Amir as the sovereign thereof.​

This is the corollary to the acknowledgement from the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan's Official History Site:

"Between 1928 and 1946, a series of Anglo-Transjordanian treaties led to almost full independence for Transjordan. While Britain retained a degree of control over foreign affairs, armed forces, communications and state finances, Emir Abdullah commanded the administrative and military machinery of the regular government. On March 22, 1946, Abdullah negotiated a new Anglo-Transjordanian treaty, ending the British mandate and gaining full independence for Transjordan."
​

Here we see a practical application of how Sovereignty and Independence was granted in 1946 and relative to the Mandate of Palestine.

NONE of what you said was accurate. If the Mandatory (UK) had not the authority over the Mandate Territory, it could not have granted Sovereignty and Independence over Trans-Jordan. Your entire claim about the LoN, the UN and the Mandatory is just so distorted that your claim is unrepairable. Whether or not the Mandatory "owned" any land is totally irrelevant, yet the pro-Palestinian draws that quasi-fact as if it means something. Relative to the discussion of Sovereignty and Independence it means as much as a Bridge Bid of 3£ (in a game where a bid of 2♦ outranks a bid of 2♣, a bid of 3♠ outranks a bid of 3♥, a bid of 3 noTRUMP outranks a bid of 3♠). Your interpretation of what was possible, what was right and proper, and what was achieved and survives to this day is not on center.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

Excellent questions, thank you.

It wasn't the UN's land to give away. .....

Okay. The problem with the Arab slash Palestinian slash Muslim point of view on this forum, and often in the international community, is that they make statements like this without thinking the idea through to its logical conclusion and have only vague notions of where their thoughts might lead. As represented here.

So, lets say we agree that it wasn't the UN's land to give away. (And we do agree. The UN never "owned" the land, was never sovereign over the land and was required, by law, to maintain the principles of law in the transfer of sovereignty from one sovereign to another).

I agree here also. The UN has never "owned" any land. This also applies to the LoN and by extension their Mandates. Neither the LoN nor Britain annexed or otherwise laid claim to the land under their trust.

So whose land was it? Who did it belong to? Which group of people held sovereignty over that territory? How is territory transferred from one sovereign to another? What principles of law apply?

Land can only be transferred by treaty. In this case it was the Treaty of Lausanne.

There is this truly odd understanding in the international community that sovereignty of the entire territory belonged vaguely to the "Arabs" who resided on some of the territory. This despite the fact that the Jewish people also resided on some of the territory.

Using terms like "the Jews" or "the Arabs" just confuse the Issue. Some Jews and some Arabs became citizens of Palestine and the rest did not.

So, I challenge those who would make these claims to think these claims through:

To whom did the legal sovereignty of this particular territory transfer after the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire (the former legal sovereign)?

I would caution you to be very, very specific in your use of language and to justify your choice of language.

Did it pass to the residents? Define who would be considered and who would not be considered a resident.

Did it pass to the "people of the place"? What does this mean? Define it.

This was very specific.

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.”​

This was reiterated by the by the Palestinian Citizenship Order of 1925.

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​

There is no question to who is Palestinian. And, of course, it is the people who are sovereign inside a defined territory.

Did it pass to the groups of indigenous peoples there? Define 'indigenous'.

Indigenous would be a tough thing to pin down. I mean... do you go back to the cave man? Palestine was invaded and conquered many times It was the center of world trade routes for thousands of years. Many people came and went. However, there was a core group of people who stayed and put down roots. These are the people who built the cities and farmed the land. There were many hundreds of villages most of which pre-dated Ottoman times, i.e. they had been there a long time. They were Muslims, Christians, and Jews who had lived together for centuries. These are the people who legally became Palestinians by the Treaty of Lausanne.

Did it pass to those who owned land in the territory?

Private land ownership was irrelevant.

Did it pass to the ethnic group which was the majority at the time?

Race, religion, and ethnicity were irrelevant. Everyone was equal.

Also think through your understanding of how a territory passes from one sovereign to another:

If a land is conquered, does the land pass to a new sovereign?

If a land is colonized, do the colonizers become the new sovereigns?

If a land is ethnically cleansed, does the ethnicity cleansed lose rights to sovereignty?

No, no, and no.

Okay, so even though I agree with Rocco that your arguments are incorrect, you seem to end up in the right place -- there is a defined territory with citizens (defined as all those normally resident in the territory as at August 1, 1925) who seek/sought national sovereignty as an expression of self-determinaton which fulfills the essential purpose of the Mandate.

These citizens consist of two distinct groups of people: the Jewish people and the Arab Palestinian people. These two distinct groups of people each want national self-determination independent of the other. This rather naturally leads to the suggestion of two States.

So why do you argue against this so strongly? What is your end game? And why?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is "interpretation" is so wrong on so many levels. Neither the Covenant or the Treaty granted any sovereignty or independence to the Arab Palestinian.

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.”​

This was reiterated by the by the Palestinian Citizenship Order of 1925.

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​

There is no question to who is Palestinian. And, of course, it is the people who are sovereign inside a defined territory.

(COMMENT)

Article 30 only impacts "citizenship;" not sovereignty.

The "territory of Palestine" and the citizenship to "Palestinian;" were the Palestine as defined in 1922 by the Order in Council.

The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine."
​

Article 30 of the Treaty was meant to compliment Paragraph 2 Palestine Legislative Council Election Order, 1922; with the Covenant, the Mandate, the Order in Council, the Legislative Council, ALL having been written by the same authorities (the Allied Powers). ALL these various written authorities were crafted to dovetail together with the understanding of there time; AND not to square (necessarily) with the mad interpretation of of a pro-Palestinian.

"Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the date of commencement of this Order."

"All persons of other than Turkish nationality habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the said date, who shall within two calendar months of the said date make application for Palestinian citizenship in such form and before such officer as may be prescribed by the High Commissioner.
​

Article 30 of the Lausanne Treaty does not trump Article 16 of the Treaty; The Treaty does not record the transfer of all Title and Rights from the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic --- only to transfer it again to another constituency. The right to become a "citizen" under the Mandate" does not imply the granting of sovereignty or independence. The use of the term "Palestine" does not imply the creation of any autonomous state. The Citizenship Order of 1925 (amended several time before the war) DID NOT change the protocols under which the Mandatory operated; merely clarified them.

The UN has never "owned" any land. This also applies to the LoN and by extension their Mandates. Neither the LoN nor Britain annexed or otherwise laid claim to the land under their trust.

(COMMENT)

This is so unhelpful and poorly interpreted in terms of what was possible and what was not possible; relative to who had what authority when. If you example the March 1946 Treaty of Alliance between the His Majesty (UK) and the Emir (Trans-Jordan), you will find Article 1: (First Clause)

His Majesty The King recognizes Trans-Jordan as a fully independent State and His Highness The Amir as the sovereign thereof.​

This is the corollary to the acknowledgement from the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan's Official History Site:

"Between 1928 and 1946, a series of Anglo-Transjordanian treaties led to almost full independence for Transjordan. While Britain retained a degree of control over foreign affairs, armed forces, communications and state finances, Emir Abdullah commanded the administrative and military machinery of the regular government. On March 22, 1946, Abdullah negotiated a new Anglo-Transjordanian treaty, ending the British mandate and gaining full independence for Transjordan."
​

Here we see a practical application of how Sovereignty and Independence was granted in 1946 and relative to the Mandate of Palestine.

NONE of what you said was accurate. If the Mandatory (UK) had not the authority over the Mandate Territory, it could not have granted Sovereignty and Independence over Trans-Jordan. Your entire claim about the LoN, the UN and the Mandatory is just so distorted that your claim is unrepairable. Whether or not the Mandatory "owned" any land is totally irrelevant, yet the pro-Palestinian draws that quasi-fact as if it means something. Relative to the discussion of Sovereignty and Independence it means as much as a Bridge Bid of 3£ (in a game where a bid of 2♦ outranks a bid of 2♣, a bid of 3♠ outranks a bid of 3♥, a bid of 3 noTRUMP outranks a bid of 3♠). Your interpretation of what was possible, what was right and proper, and what was achieved and survives to this day is not on center.

Most Respectfully,
R

This is so unhelpful and poorly interpreted in terms of what was possible and what was not possible; relative to who had what authority when. If you example the March 1946 Treaty of Alliance between the His Majesty (UK) and the Emir (Trans-Jordan), you will find Article 1: (First Clause)

His Majesty The King recognizes Trans-Jordan as a fully independent State and His Highness The Amir as the sovereign thereof.
This is the corollary to the acknowledgement from the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan's Official History Site:​

Thank you for bringing up Transjordan. We can see that Britain (more or less) followed the LoN Covenant that led to the sovereign state of Jordan. On the flipside, Britain ignored everything except the wishes of the foreign Zionists. This did not lead to an independent state of Palestine but to a war that has been festering for a hundred. Britain ignored the Covenant, international law, and the rights of the Palestinians to pursue its colonial project with the foreign Zionists leading to the disaster we see today.

From 1923 on, therefore, until the end of Britain’s tenure in 1948, the government that functioned in Palestine was unique among League “A” mandates. Far from nurturing the local population to self-government, it was a Crown Colony in all but name. The high commissioner was all-powerful, with full rights to appoint, dismiss, or suspend anyone holding government office in Palestine and to sell or lease any public lands. Ultimately, Samuel and his successors were restrained by no constitutional limitations whatever as far as the nation’s inhabitants were concerned.

The British Mandate in Palestine
​

I don't see anything in the post war treaties voiding the rights of the Palestinians that were universal to the other territories.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Excellent questions, thank you.

It wasn't the UN's land to give away. .....

Okay. The problem with the Arab slash Palestinian slash Muslim point of view on this forum, and often in the international community, is that they make statements like this without thinking the idea through to its logical conclusion and have only vague notions of where their thoughts might lead. As represented here.

So, lets say we agree that it wasn't the UN's land to give away. (And we do agree. The UN never "owned" the land, was never sovereign over the land and was required, by law, to maintain the principles of law in the transfer of sovereignty from one sovereign to another).

I agree here also. The UN has never "owned" any land. This also applies to the LoN and by extension their Mandates. Neither the LoN nor Britain annexed or otherwise laid claim to the land under their trust.

So whose land was it? Who did it belong to? Which group of people held sovereignty over that territory? How is territory transferred from one sovereign to another? What principles of law apply?

Land can only be transferred by treaty. In this case it was the Treaty of Lausanne.

There is this truly odd understanding in the international community that sovereignty of the entire territory belonged vaguely to the "Arabs" who resided on some of the territory. This despite the fact that the Jewish people also resided on some of the territory.

Using terms like "the Jews" or "the Arabs" just confuse the Issue. Some Jews and some Arabs became citizens of Palestine and the rest did not.

So, I challenge those who would make these claims to think these claims through:

To whom did the legal sovereignty of this particular territory transfer after the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire (the former legal sovereign)?

I would caution you to be very, very specific in your use of language and to justify your choice of language.

Did it pass to the residents? Define who would be considered and who would not be considered a resident.

Did it pass to the "people of the place"? What does this mean? Define it.

This was very specific.

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.”​

This was reiterated by the by the Palestinian Citizenship Order of 1925.

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​

There is no question to who is Palestinian. And, of course, it is the people who are sovereign inside a defined territory.

Did it pass to the groups of indigenous peoples there? Define 'indigenous'.

Indigenous would be a tough thing to pin down. I mean... do you go back to the cave man? Palestine was invaded and conquered many times It was the center of world trade routes for thousands of years. Many people came and went. However, there was a core group of people who stayed and put down roots. These are the people who built the cities and farmed the land. There were many hundreds of villages most of which pre-dated Ottoman times, i.e. they had been there a long time. They were Muslims, Christians, and Jews who had lived together for centuries. These are the people who legally became Palestinians by the Treaty of Lausanne.

Did it pass to those who owned land in the territory?

Private land ownership was irrelevant.

Did it pass to the ethnic group which was the majority at the time?

Race, religion, and ethnicity were irrelevant. Everyone was equal.

Also think through your understanding of how a territory passes from one sovereign to another:

If a land is conquered, does the land pass to a new sovereign?

If a land is colonized, do the colonizers become the new sovereigns?

If a land is ethnically cleansed, does the ethnicity cleansed lose rights to sovereignty?

No, no, and no.

Okay, so even though I agree with Rocco that your arguments are incorrect, you seem to end up in the right place -- there is a defined territory with citizens (defined as all those normally resident in the territory as at August 1, 1925) who seek/sought national sovereignty as an expression of self-determinaton which fulfills the essential purpose of the Mandate.

These citizens consist of two distinct groups of people: the Jewish people and the Arab Palestinian people. These two distinct groups of people each want national self-determination independent of the other. This rather naturally leads to the suggestion of two States.

So why do you argue against this so strongly? What is your end game? And why?

These citizens consist of two distinct groups of people: the Jewish people and the Arab Palestinian people.​

Not true. There were Muslim, Christian, and Jewish Palestinians with equal rights. They were all one people. They agreed in the important issues of the tines. They all, including the Jews, wanted a single democratic state with equal rights for all. They all, including the Jews, were opposed to the creation of a Jewish.

I am on the side of the native Jews.

Whose side are you on?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

It is the standard complaint that rights were withheld from the Arab Palestinian; and that somehow, they did not get something to which they were entitled.

This follows the continuous failure, refusal and reject in every way that the Mandate attempted to encourage participation in gradual administration in a semi-autonomous government. The Arab Palestinian was never satisfied with the direction and progress of the Article 22 tutelage. Where, the Jewish people never really adopted the policy of attempting to meet the Steps Preparatory to Independence that the Arab, refused and rejected.

THEN the Arab Palestinian why, in nearly a century they have no real achievement in their political or nationalistic aspirations.

If Arab Palestinian don't work at it, you will not accomplish much. If the Arab Palestinian continuously start military and terrorist confrontations, the Arab Palestinian are not going to achieve your political or nationalistic aspirations. In fact, this is the more generally recognized direction in self-destruction (which is also a valid right under self-determination).

Thank you for bringing up Transjordan. We can see that Britain (more or less) followed the LoN Covenant that led to the sovereign state of Jordan. On the flipside, Britain ignored everything except the wishes of the foreign Zionists. This did not lead to an independent state of Palestine but to a war that has been festering for a hundred. Britain ignored the Covenant, international law, and the rights of the Palestinians to pursue its colonial project with the foreign Zionists leading to the disaster we see today.

From 1923 on, therefore, until the end of Britain’s tenure in 1948, the government that functioned in Palestine was unique among League “A” mandates. Far from nurturing the local population to self-government, it was a Crown Colony in all but name. The high commissioner was all-powerful, with full rights to appoint, dismiss, or suspend anyone holding government office in Palestine and to sell or lease any public lands. Ultimately, Samuel and his successors were restrained by no constitutional limitations whatever as far as the nation’s inhabitants were concerned.

The British Mandate in Palestine
​

I don't see anything in the post war treaties voiding the rights of the Palestinians that were universal to the other territories.

(COMMENT)

You are correct. There is nothing in any of the Covenants, Charters, Resolutions, Mandates, Customary IHL or Treaties (etc) that voids or denies the rights (no matter what adjective you conjure with them). ONLY the Arab Palestinian turned-away, rejected, and ignored the opportunities to participate on an equal footing with everyone else. The Arab Palestinians did it to themselves. The Arab Palestinians (as the population formerly under the purview of the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration) were making such demands and attempting to obstruct the accomplishment of a primary objective of the Mandate (the establishment of the Jewish National Home) and the encouraged immigration for "all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home (JNH)."

There is no universal or inherent (what ever adjective you wish to assign) "rights" afforded the Arab Palestinian that would allow the Jewish People to attempt to establish the JNH and pursue the Steps Preparatory to Independence; OR to be the motivator for the invasion by the Arab League to attack the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. NOR is there any "right" that allows the Arab Palestinian to conduct a continuous campaign violence, jihadism, and terror lasting more than half-century because like little children, they wanted to stomp their feet and hold a temper tantrum because they did not get what they wanted.

United Kingdom Delegation to the United Nations, New York 18 August 1947
The Political History of Palestine under British Administration

Later in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”. The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people. They added that, never having recognised the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis.​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

It is the standard complaint that rights were withheld from the Arab Palestinian; and that somehow, they did not get something to which they were entitled.

This follows the continuous failure, refusal and reject in every way that the Mandate attempted to encourage participation in gradual administration in a semi-autonomous government. The Arab Palestinian was never satisfied with the direction and progress of the Article 22 tutelage. Where, the Jewish people never really adopted the policy of attempting to meet the Steps Preparatory to Independence that the Arab, refused and rejected.

THEN the Arab Palestinian why, in nearly a century they have no real achievement in their political or nationalistic aspirations.

If Arab Palestinian don't work at it, you will not accomplish much. If the Arab Palestinian continuously start military and terrorist confrontations, the Arab Palestinian are not going to achieve your political or nationalistic aspirations. In fact, this is the more generally recognized direction in self-destruction (which is also a valid right under self-determination).

Thank you for bringing up Transjordan. We can see that Britain (more or less) followed the LoN Covenant that led to the sovereign state of Jordan. On the flipside, Britain ignored everything except the wishes of the foreign Zionists. This did not lead to an independent state of Palestine but to a war that has been festering for a hundred. Britain ignored the Covenant, international law, and the rights of the Palestinians to pursue its colonial project with the foreign Zionists leading to the disaster we see today.

From 1923 on, therefore, until the end of Britain’s tenure in 1948, the government that functioned in Palestine was unique among League “A” mandates. Far from nurturing the local population to self-government, it was a Crown Colony in all but name. The high commissioner was all-powerful, with full rights to appoint, dismiss, or suspend anyone holding government office in Palestine and to sell or lease any public lands. Ultimately, Samuel and his successors were restrained by no constitutional limitations whatever as far as the nation’s inhabitants were concerned.

The British Mandate in Palestine
​

I don't see anything in the post war treaties voiding the rights of the Palestinians that were universal to the other territories.

(COMMENT)

You are correct. There is nothing in any of the Covenants, Charters, Resolutions, Mandates, Customary IHL or Treaties (etc) that voids or denies the rights (no matter what adjective you conjure with them). ONLY the Arab Palestinian turned-away, rejected, and ignored the opportunities to participate on an equal footing with everyone else. The Arab Palestinians did it to themselves. The Arab Palestinians (as the population formerly under the purview of the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration) were making such demands and attempting to obstruct the accomplishment of a primary objective of the Mandate (the establishment of the Jewish National Home) and the encouraged immigration for "all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home (JNH)."

There is no universal or inherent (what ever adjective you wish to assign) "rights" afforded the Arab Palestinian that would allow the Jewish People to attempt to establish the JNH and pursue the Steps Preparatory to Independence; OR to be the motivator for the invasion by the Arab League to attack the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. NOR is there any "right" that allows the Arab Palestinian to conduct a continuous campaign violence, jihadism, and terror lasting more than half-century because like little children, they wanted to stomp their feet and hold a temper tantrum because they did not get what they wanted.

United Kingdom Delegation to the United Nations, New York 18 August 1947
The Political History of Palestine under British Administration

Later in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”. The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people. They added that, never having recognised the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis.​

Most Respectfully,
R

Indeed, the Palestinians refused to buy into the British/Zionist colonial project.

What else you got?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes and this is a stock answer.

Indeed, the Palestinians refused to buy into the British/Zionist colonial project.

What else you got?

(COMMENT)

Each time the Arab Palestinians failed to cooperate, the more difficult it becomes to keep up with those attempting to build a Jewish Nation Home.

The Arab Palestinian cannot, over sustained period of time refuse to participate, reject opportunities and violate the restrictions on threats and the use of force ... and still claim foul. That simply doesn't even pass the smell test.

Similarly, the Arab Palestinian cannot incite or initiate jihadist and terrorist activity over and over again and not expect to be on the receiving end of retaliation and suppression. They simply cannot openly initiate decades of conflict and not expect consequences.

And together, the accumulation of these conditions will be self-destructive which is also a (inherent and universal) right the Arab Palestinians have.
​

(SUBSTANCE)

The comeback of: What else your got? is (admittedly) a snappy answer. Buck open to general examination, has no content.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes and this is a stock answer.

Indeed, the Palestinians refused to buy into the British/Zionist colonial project.

What else you got?

(COMMENT)

Each time the Arab Palestinians failed to cooperate, the more difficult it becomes to keep up with those attempting to build a Jewish Nation Home.

The Arab Palestinian cannot, over sustained period of time refuse to participate, reject opportunities and violate the restrictions on threats and the use of force ... and still claim foul. That simply doesn't even pass the smell test.

Similarly, the Arab Palestinian cannot incite or initiate jihadist and terrorist activity over and over again and not expect to be on the receiving end of retaliation and suppression. They simply cannot openly initiate decades of conflict and not expect consequences.

And together, the accumulation of these conditions will be self-destructive which is also a (inherent and universal) right the Arab Palestinians have.
​

(SUBSTANCE)

The comeback of: What else your got? is (admittedly) a snappy answer. Buck open to general examination, has no content.

Most Respectfully,
R

Colonization is the initial aggression. You always ignore that fact.

 

[irosie91]

Excellent questions, thank you.

It wasn't the UN's land to give away. .....

Okay. The problem with the Arab slash Palestinian slash Muslim point of view on this forum, and often in the international community, is that they make statements like this without thinking the idea through to its logical conclusion and have only vague notions of where their thoughts might lead. As represented here.

So, lets say we agree that it wasn't the UN's land to give away. (And we do agree. The UN never "owned" the land, was never sovereign over the land and was required, by law, to maintain the principles of law in the transfer of sovereignty from one sovereign to another).

I agree here also. The UN has never "owned" any land. This also applies to the LoN and by extension their Mandates. Neither the LoN nor Britain annexed or otherwise laid claim to the land under their trust.

So whose land was it? Who did it belong to? Which group of people held sovereignty over that territory? How is territory transferred from one sovereign to another? What principles of law apply?

Land can only be transferred by treaty. In this case it was the Treaty of Lausanne.

There is this truly odd understanding in the international community that sovereignty of the entire territory belonged vaguely to the "Arabs" who resided on some of the territory. This despite the fact that the Jewish people also resided on some of the territory.

Using terms like "the Jews" or "the Arabs" just confuse the Issue. Some Jews and some Arabs became citizens of Palestine and the rest did not.

So, I challenge those who would make these claims to think these claims through:

To whom did the legal sovereignty of this particular territory transfer after the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire (the former legal sovereign)?

I would caution you to be very, very specific in your use of language and to justify your choice of language.

Did it pass to the residents? Define who would be considered and who would not be considered a resident.

Did it pass to the "people of the place"? What does this mean? Define it.

This was very specific.

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.”​

This was reiterated by the by the Palestinian Citizenship Order of 1925.

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​

There is no question to who is Palestinian. And, of course, it is the people who are sovereign inside a defined territory.

Did it pass to the groups of indigenous peoples there? Define 'indigenous'.

Indigenous would be a tough thing to pin down. I mean... do you go back to the cave man? Palestine was invaded and conquered many times It was the center of world trade routes for thousands of years. Many people came and went. However, there was a core group of people who stayed and put down roots. These are the people who built the cities and farmed the land. There were many hundreds of villages most of which pre-dated Ottoman times, i.e. they had been there a long time. They were Muslims, Christians, and Jews who had lived together for centuries. These are the people who legally became Palestinians by the Treaty of Lausanne.

Did it pass to those who owned land in the territory?

Private land ownership was irrelevant.

Did it pass to the ethnic group which was the majority at the time?

Race, religion, and ethnicity were irrelevant. Everyone was equal.

Also think through your understanding of how a territory passes from one sovereign to another:

If a land is conquered, does the land pass to a new sovereign?

If a land is colonized, do the colonizers become the new sovereigns?

If a land is ethnically cleansed, does the ethnicity cleansed lose rights to sovereignty?

No, no, and no.

Okay, so even though I agree with Rocco that your arguments are incorrect, you seem to end up in the right place -- there is a defined territory with citizens (defined as all those normally resident in the territory as at August 1, 1925) who seek/sought national sovereignty as an expression of self-determinaton which fulfills the essential purpose of the Mandate.

These citizens consist of two distinct groups of people: the Jewish people and the Arab Palestinian people. These two distinct groups of people each want national self-determination independent of the other. This rather naturally leads to the suggestion of two States.

So why do you argue against this so strongly? What is your end game? And why?

These citizens consist of two distinct groups of people: the Jewish people and the Arab Palestinian people.​

Not true. There were Muslim, Christian, and Jewish Palestinians with equal rights. They were all one people. They agreed in the important issues of the tines. They all, including the Jews, wanted a single democratic state with equal rights for all. They all, including the Jews, were opposed to the creation of a Jewish.

I am on the side of the native Jews.

Whose side are you on?

how are you defining 'native jews' ? once you define them----let me know how you "know" what they wanted?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You miss several of the very important facts about colonization.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes and this is a stock answer.

Indeed, the Palestinians refused to buy into the British/Zionist colonial project.

Mantra
• All peoples (which includes Israel and the people of the West Bank and Gaza Strip) have an inalienable right (a right which cannot be given or taken) to complete freedom, the exercise of their sovereignty and the integrity of their national territory ...
​

What else you got?

(COMMENT)

Each time the Arab Palestinians failed to cooperate, the more difficult it becomes to keep up with those attempting to build a Jewish Nation Home.

The Arab Palestinian cannot, over sustained period of time refuse to participate, reject opportunities and violate the restrictions on threats and the use of force ... and still claim foul. That simply doesn't even pass the smell test.

Similarly, the Arab Palestinian cannot incite or initiate jihadist and terrorist activity over and over again and not expect to be on the receiving end of retaliation and suppression. They simply cannot openly initiate decades of conflict and not expect consequences.

And together, the accumulation of these conditions will be self-destructive which is also a (inherent and universal) right the Arab Palestinians have.
​

(SUBSTANCE)

The comeback of: What else your got? is (admittedly) a snappy answer. Buck open to general examination, has no content.

Most Respectfully,
R

Colonization is the initial aggression. You always ignore that fact.

(COMMENT)

You cannot colonize yourself. (Layman's Terms!!!)

It is not colonization IF Ottoman Empire/Turkey Republic renounced all rights and title whatsoever over the territory to which the Mandate Applied; and acquired the control of the future of these territories. There is no alien aggression if the Allied Powers which had all rights and title granted immigration privileges to the Jewish People will to establish a Jewish National Home under the provisions of Article 4, Mandate for Palestine.

• Subjugation, except as may be required under Articles #43 Hague Regulation, to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety.
• Domination, except as may be required in the face of a demonstrated threat, and as agreed to under the Oslo Accords, Israel does not exercise of preponderant, governing, or controlling influence.
• Exploitation, Israel does not maintain public order and safety for the express purpose of treating Arab Palestinians unfairly in order to benefit from their work product.

The Arab Palestinian has had the right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
​

It is without prejudice to questions of recognition of the Arab Palestinian that the Jewish People, under the authority of the Mandate for Palestine and the Treaty of Lausanne, that the the Allied Power selected as the Mandatory, facilitated Jewish immigration under suitable and shall encourage to assist and take part in the development of the country. The Arab Palestinians declined to participate and rejected the opportunity to assist in the development of the territory as a recognized as a public body.

A/RES/29/3314 Approves the Definition of Aggression
Article 1
Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this Definition.
​

It was the Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition. The policy of non-cooperation in Article 22 activities was established when (even before the State of Israel existed) that
the Arabs of Palestine would not recognize the Balfour Declaration or the Mandate of Palestine --- or any effort derived therefrom.

Abdul Rahman Hassan Azzam (AKA: Azzam Pasha) (1 DEC 1947) made the following statement, that was mimiced by the Arab Leaders of the Arab League, the Arab Higher Committee, and the Arab Palestinians:

There is no question that the principle members of the Arab League had collectively incited violence. It was ignored then as it is ignored now, as a threat to regional peace. On 15 May 1948, for the reasons stated above, regular troops of the neighboring Arab States entered the territory to assist the Arab Palestinian.

(ARAB STRATEGY)

The complaint the Arab Palestinians express today, are the exact same complaints that expressed seven decades ago. The difference is, the Arab Palestinians are trying to retroactively apply 21st Century, Customary and International Humanitarian Law (IHL).

Relative to the Right of Return (RoR), the concept is to inject as many jihadist, terrorists and insurgents -- as possible into Israel, such that the Arab will change the demographics. Again subvert and destroy the Jewish National Home from the inside.

Incitement to violence --- with two central intentions.

• By promote, by all means of violence, publicity and terrorist coercion available to them, generate an atmosphere to generate a new conflict against

• Create an environment designed or likely to provoke or encourage and threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression; by pressuring the UN and EU into sanctions such that Israel will have to engage and totally destroy the West Bank, Gaza Strip and the Arab aspects of Jerusalem.

• Acts, methods and practices of actions that induce hostile elements that have demonstrated a threat to international peace and security, in the past.

• To promote and validate international cooperation aimed at the destruction of Israel and deny fundamental freedoms to the Jewish People and removed them from the most highly developed society of the Middle East; greater than any state in the Arab League.
​

If, for some reason, the Israeli people see the eminent destruction of their way of life by the Arab League, what to you think the reaction would be? What do you think the consequences would be?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[irosie91]

In order to understand Mr. Tin----you need to understand that the entire Middle east is "ARAB MUSLIM LAND"-----It is not a new Idea-----it has been ongoing for some 1200 years. Once a muslim pisses on a land----it become, at least, muslim land---if an ARAB MUSLIM --spits, shits and eructates-----it is arab muslim land forever

 

[Shusha]

Not true. There were Muslim, Christian, and Jewish Palestinians with equal rights. They were all one people. They agreed in the important issues of the tines. They all, including the Jews, wanted a single democratic state with equal rights for all. They all, including the Jews, were opposed to the creation of a Jewish.

I am on the side of the native Jews.

Whose side are you on?

I am on the side of both the Jewish people and the Arab Palestinian people in their quest for self-determination and sovereignty over some portion of the territory in question.

So let's say you are correct, that the Jewish people and the Arab people residing in the territory on August 1, 1925 wanted a single democratic state to be jointly governed by the Jewish people and the Arab people. (I don't think you are correct, let me be clear. And I don't know what you would produce to prove it to me, but let's say...)

How do you propose to employ this "truth" to provide a solution to the problem going forward? What do you propose as a solution, given the realities of the situation now, a hundred years on where there is most clearly two distinct peoples, each wishing self-government? What do you think should happen? What would be a just solution?

Do you want everyone (both Jews and Arabs) expelled who were not residents in 1925, or descendants of such residents? How would each resident prove such a status? If a current citizen has one of four grandparents who was such a resident, would that be enough, or need it be all four?

See the problem I have with your position, is it is based on your personal sense of history and justice that is a 100 years gone. It has no practical value, other than constantly undermining the rights of the Jewish people.

 

[irosie91]

Not true. There were Muslim, Christian, and Jewish Palestinians with equal rights. They were all one people. They agreed in the important issues of the tines. They all, including the Jews, wanted a single democratic state with equal rights for all. They all, including the Jews, were opposed to the creation of a Jewish.

I am on the side of the native Jews.

Whose side are you on?

I am on the side of both the Jewish people and the Arab Palestinian people in their quest for self-determination and sovereignty over some portion of the territory in question.

So let's say you are correct, that the Jewish people and the Arab people residing in the territory on August 1, 1925 wanted a single democratic state to be jointly governed by the Jewish people and the Arab people. (I don't think you are correct, let me be clear. And I don't know what you would produce to prove it to me, but let's say...)

you are right----Mr. Tin is lying------In 1925 the jews of Palestine were very interested in a jewish state in Palestine---
at least MOST OF THEM including those who had resided in
Palestine by that time for more than 100 years. The concept of Christians, muslims, and jews all residing together in happiness and joy before "THE ZIONISTS" "invaded"----is
islamo-nazi historic revisionism. In fact it is taught in muslim kindergartens along with the fantasy that ----ALL PEOPLE------muslims and---especially jews and Christians who live in a
CALIPHATE under Islamic law are DELERIOUSLY HAPPY----in fact so are ZOROASTRIANS AND HINDUS-----so five year old muslim children are taught-------