All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss

[Hollie]

Irrelevant. The Mandates were temporarily assigned administration to render administrative assistance and advise. They did not acquire sovereignty.

Irrelevant. Israel acquired sovereignty.

Colonization.

Yes, Islamic colonization was a factor.


So, we are back to P F Tinmore cutting and pasting his “Ipso facto” snippet, out of context, and insisting that the Treaty of Lausanne somehow invented the “country of Pally’land”

Ten years of the same cut and paste nonsense.

Irrelevant. Israel acquired sovereignty.

Unsubstantiated Israeli talking point.

So, your newest conspiracy theory is that Israel has not acquired sovereignty? That’s odd because the state of Israel demonstrates the various attributes that define national sovereignty.

National sovereignty

You might have a Press TV produced YouTube video that contradicts?

Sure I do, but it is up to you to prove your point.

The point has been proved. The jewish people established a sovereign nation. You will deny that but you can't refute it, despite your Press TV YouTube videos.

 

[Hollie]

Irrelevant. The Mandates were temporarily assigned administration to render administrative assistance and advise. They did not acquire sovereignty.

Irrelevant. Israel acquired sovereignty.

Colonization.

Yes, Islamic colonization was a factor.


So, we are back to P F Tinmore cutting and pasting his “Ipso facto” snippet, out of context, and insisting that the Treaty of Lausanne somehow invented the “country of Pally’land”

Ten years of the same cut and paste nonsense.

Ten years of the same cut and paste nonsense.

Indeed, Zionists are slow learners.

Indeed, It is comical that Islamics invent history as a way to invent some imagined “country of Pal’istan”.

Don’t you find it odd that the Treaty of Lausanne, which you believe created your magical Kingdom of Pally’land, somehow neglected to mention such a place?

Deflection.

None of the new states were mentioned.

Deflection.

There was no mention of Pal'istan in the Treaty of Lausanne. You insist on creating / inventing a version of history that appeals to your Islamist ideology. The fact is, the Treaty of Lausanne never created a state of Pal'istan.

The Jewish people succeeded and achieved what Arabs-Moslems could not. You simply cannot reinvent your way around that.

BTW, this has all been addressed for you in a thread dedicated to your whining about Arab-Moslem failures and incompetence.

A quick search lists 7 (count’em), 7 pages (probably 100 separate instances), of your “ipso facto” cut and paste slogan. How many more times / threads do you need to spam?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Irrelevant. The Mandates were temporarily assigned administration to render administrative assistance and advise. They did not acquire sovereignty.

Irrelevant. Israel acquired sovereignty.

Colonization.

Yes, Islamic colonization was a factor.


So, we are back to P F Tinmore cutting and pasting his “Ipso facto” snippet, out of context, and insisting that the Treaty of Lausanne somehow invented the “country of Pally’land”

Ten years of the same cut and paste nonsense.

Ten years of the same cut and paste nonsense.

Indeed, Zionists are slow learners.

Indeed, It is comical that Islamics invent history as a way to invent some imagined “country of Pal’istan”.

Don’t you find it odd that the Treaty of Lausanne, which you believe created your magical Kingdom of Pally’land, somehow neglected to mention such a place?

Deflection.

None of the new states were mentioned.

Deflection.

There was no mention of Pal'istan in the Treaty of Lausanne. You insist on creating / inventing a version of history that appeals to your Islamist ideology. The fact is, the Treaty of Lausanne never created a state of Pal'istan.

The Jewish people succeeded and achieved what Arabs-Moslems could not. You simply cannot reinvent your way around that.

BTW, this has all been addressed for you in a thread dedicated to your whining about Arab-Moslem failures and incompetence.

A quick search lists 7 (count’em), 7 pages (probably 100 separate instances), of your “ipso facto” cut and paste slogan. How many more times / threads do you need to spam?

The fact is, the Treaty of Lausanne never created a state of Pal'istan.

I have always agreed with that. Why do you keep bringing it up?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Irrelevant. The Mandates were temporarily assigned administration to render administrative assistance and advise. They did not acquire sovereignty.

Irrelevant. Israel acquired sovereignty.

Colonization.

Yes, Islamic colonization was a factor.


So, we are back to P F Tinmore cutting and pasting his “Ipso facto” snippet, out of context, and insisting that the Treaty of Lausanne somehow invented the “country of Pally’land”

Ten years of the same cut and paste nonsense.

Ten years of the same cut and paste nonsense.

Indeed, Zionists are slow learners.

Indeed, It is comical that Islamics invent history as a way to invent some imagined “country of Pal’istan”.

Don’t you find it odd that the Treaty of Lausanne, which you believe created your magical Kingdom of Pally’land, somehow neglected to mention such a place?

Deflection.

None of the new states were mentioned.

Deflection.

There was no mention of Pal'istan in the Treaty of Lausanne. You insist on creating / inventing a version of history that appeals to your Islamist ideology. The fact is, the Treaty of Lausanne never created a state of Pal'istan.

The Jewish people succeeded and achieved what Arabs-Moslems could not. You simply cannot reinvent your way around that.

BTW, this has all been addressed for you in a thread dedicated to your whining about Arab-Moslem failures and incompetence.

A quick search lists 7 (count’em), 7 pages (probably 100 separate instances), of your “ipso facto” cut and paste slogan. How many more times / threads do you need to spam?

The Jewish people succeeded and achieved what Arabs-Moslems could not. You simply cannot reinvent your way around that.

There you go back to your unsubstantiated talking point.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You keep making this point as if someone is suggesting that the Madatesassumed "sovereignty."

The territory was governed by the British.

Irrelevant. The Mandates were temporarily assigned administration to render administrative assistance and advise. They did not acquire sovereignty.

(COMMENT)

No one, that I am aware of, is suggesting or had suggested that the Allied Powers assumed sovereignty; although Article 16 does not prohibit it. Why don't you stick to what is factually claimed?

Absent sovereign powers, the Mandatory was entrusted with the territory; which included (but not limited to):

• Full powers of legislation
  
• Full powers of administration
• Full powers over the maintenance of public order and safety
  
• Full responsibility for political conditions
  
• Full responsibility for economic conditions
• Full responsibility for the total protection of the territory from foreign influence or control
  
• Full responsibility for enacting a nationality law
  
• Full responsibility for the administration over immigration activities
• Full responsibility for consular jurisdiction
• Full control over foreign relations; and entitled to diplomatic and consular protection
  
• Full responsibility for taking all necessary measures regarding the development of the territory
• Full responsibility to provide for public ownership of natural resources
  
• Full responsibility to provide for all public works, services, and utilities
• Full responsibility for land management and utilization

BTW: What is the time limit on the term of "temporary;" and where did the Allied Powers establish that limit? (Please be specific with your citation.)

What happened next?

Colonization.

(COMMENT)

To my knowledge, the Allied Powers did not specifically delegate the authority to colonize the territory. And to my knowledge, there is no record of any significant numbers of the citizens of the Allied Powers establishing colonies. However, as previously mentioned, the Mandatory had the specific mandate to secure the establishment of the Jewish National Home. And as stated previously:

• Full responsibility for enacting a nationality law
  
• Full responsibility for the administration over immigration activities

So it would probably be much more clear if, instead of making innuendos about sovereignty, you make your complaints specific to an action that you think is unauthorized. Or, if you want to, explain what authorities or powers "Sovereignty" has over what powers and responsibilities the Allied Powers granted.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmores’ rule is a part of the circuitous route he navigates around the Treaty of Lausanne creating his imagined “country of Pal’istan”. Therefore, the Treaty of Lausanne creating his imagined “country of Pal’istan”, thus created Pal’istanian citizens of that country. You can’t have a “country of Pal’istan” without Pal’istanians, now can you?

Tinmore likes to play fast and loose with the rules when we are talking about Jews. He constructs elaborate ‘international law’ based on what appeals to him at the moment.

I suspect he is going to argue that Palestine is a successor state to the Ottoman Empire and therefore all residents automatically obtained Palestinian citizenship. And if he wants to argue that, I’m happy to oblige him.

I have no idea how he is going to try to apply that in perpetuity while while ignoring any domestic nationality law. Or how he could possibly defend such a ridiculous notion.

The problem is that he wants to make 7 million Arabs somehow nationals of Israel, by right of law, and I just can’t see how he can manage that.

The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the perspective of public international law. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British government pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine.”123 And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality.”124
------------------
Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:

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

-------------------
The automatic, ipso facto, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:

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

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel

Sure. I’ve read the same article. So we agree that in 1924 there was an international de jure Palestinian nationality under the Mandate for Palestine.

We can probably also agree that there is a domestic de jure Palestinian nationality based in the Palestinian Citizenship Order of 1925.

(Please note this in no way suggests there was a State of Palestine extant at this time. The territory was governed by the British.)

So we agree that there was a specifically defined Palestinian nationality beginning in 1924.

What happened next?

The territory was governed by the British.

Irrelevant. The Mandates were temporarily assigned administration to render administrative assistance and advise. They did not acquire sovereignty.

What happened next?

Colonization.

So in your mind, what happened with respect to nationality after 1925? Or are you trying to argue that the territory is still governed by the 1925 Palestinian Citizenship Order?

Good question. Where can a citizenship go? Who has the authority to take it away?

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You keep making this point as if someone is suggesting that the Madatesassumed "sovereignty."

The territory was governed by the British.

Irrelevant. The Mandates were temporarily assigned administration to render administrative assistance and advise. They did not acquire sovereignty.

(COMMENT)

No one, that I am aware of, is suggesting or had suggested that the Allied Powers assumed sovereignty; although Article 16 does not prohibit it. Why don't you stick to what is factually claimed?

Absent sovereign powers, the Mandatory was entrusted with the territory; which included (but not limited to):

• Full powers of legislation
  
• Full powers of administration
• Full powers over the maintenance of public order and safety
  
• Full responsibility for political conditions
  
• Full responsibility for economic conditions
• Full responsibility for the total protection of the territory from foreign influence or control
  
• Full responsibility for enacting a nationality law
  
• Full responsibility for the administration over immigration activities
• Full responsibility for consular jurisdiction
• Full control over foreign relations; and entitled to diplomatic and consular protection
  
• Full responsibility for taking all necessary measures regarding the development of the territory
• Full responsibility to provide for public ownership of natural resources
  
• Full responsibility to provide for all public works, services, and utilities
• Full responsibility for land management and utilization

BTW: What is the time limit on the term of "temporary;" and where did the Allied Powers establish that limit? (Please be specific with your citation.)

What happened next?

Colonization.

(COMMENT)

To my knowledge, the Allied Powers did not specifically delegate the authority to colonize the territory. And to my knowledge, there is no record of any significant numbers of the citizens of the Allied Powers establishing colonies. However, as previously mentioned, the Mandatory had the specific mandate to secure the establishment of the Jewish National Home. And as stated previously:

• Full responsibility for enacting a nationality law
  
• Full responsibility for the administration over immigration activities

So it would probably be much more clear if, instead of making innuendos about sovereignty, you make your complaints specific to an action that you think is unauthorized. Or, if you want to, explain what authorities or powers "Sovereignty" has over what powers and responsibilities the Allied Powers granted.

Most Respectfully,
R

No one, that I am aware of, is suggesting or had suggested that the Allied Powers assumed sovereignty;

Then why do all of the propagandists use the term Mandated like they had sovereignty over the territory?

BTW: What is the time limit on the term of "temporary;" and where did the Allied Powers establish that limit?

The goal and limit were the same thing. Until the people achieved independence.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm throwing a flag on this play.

There you go back to your unsubstantiated talking point.

(COMMENT)

Be specific, what are you claiming is "unsubstantiated?"

Israel is the highest ranked (22 of 138) country on the Human Develop Index anywhere in the MENA Region. Whereas the Palestinians are (119 or 138). The only country that ranks lower in the MENA Region is Iraq.

Israel has made more contributions in scientific research and developments than any Arab League Member nation. Israel has been awarded more Nobel Prizes than the entirety of the 22 Member Nation Arab League.

And in terms of economic potentional, the Arab Palestinians cannot even touch Israel.

So what are you talking about when you say "unsubstantiated?"

Has the Arab Palestinian ever met the Article 22 Criteria to stand alone?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Did you read the fraggen list I made.

You keep making this point as if someone is suggesting that the Madatesassumed "sovereignty."

The territory was governed by the British.

Irrelevant. The Mandates were temporarily assigned administration to render administrative assistance and advise. They did not acquire sovereignty.

(COMMENT)

No one, that I am aware of, is suggesting or had suggested that the Allied Powers assumed sovereignty; although Article 16 does not prohibit it. Why don't you stick to what is factually claimed?

Absent sovereign powers, the Mandatory was entrusted with the territory; which included (but not limited to):

• Full powers of legislation
  
• Full powers of administration
• Full powers over the maintenance of public order and safety
  
• Full responsibility for political conditions
  
• Full responsibility for economic conditions
• Full responsibility for the total protection of the territory from foreign influence or control
  
• Full responsibility for enacting a nationality law
  
• Full responsibility for the administration over immigration activities
• Full responsibility for consular jurisdiction
• Full control over foreign relations; and entitled to diplomatic and consular protection
  
• Full responsibility for taking all necessary measures regarding the development of the territory
• Full responsibility to provide for public ownership of natural resources
  
• Full responsibility to provide for all public works, services, and utilities
• Full responsibility for land management and utilization

BTW: What is the time limit on the term of "temporary;" and where did the Allied Powers establish that limit? (Please be specific with your citation.)

What happened next?

Colonization.

(COMMENT)

To my knowledge, the Allied Powers did not specifically delegate the authority to colonize the territory. And to my knowledge, there is no record of any significant numbers of the citizens of the Allied Powers establishing colonies. However, as previously mentioned, the Mandatory had the specific mandate to secure the establishment of the Jewish National Home. And as stated previously:

• Full responsibility for enacting a nationality law
  
• Full responsibility for the administration over immigration activities

So it would probably be much more clear if, instead of making innuendos about sovereignty, you make your complaints specific to an action that you think is unauthorized. Or, if you want to, explain what authorities or powers "Sovereignty" has over what powers and responsibilities the Allied Powers granted.

Most Respectfully,
R

No one, that I am aware of, is suggesting or had suggested that the Allied Powers assumed sovereignty;

Then why do all of the propagandists use the term Mandated like they had sovereignty over the territory?

BTW: What is the time limit on the term of "temporary;" and where did the Allied Powers establish that limit?

The goal and limit were the same thing. Until the people achieved independence.

(COMMENT)

When someone says Mandated, they are generally talking about what the Allied Powers expected. But they are being truthful when they avoid saying sovereignty.

The Mandate was an authority. The Arab Palestinians had none.

So, you don't know that the Mandatory exceeded its temporary assignment. So you just made that up?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Hollie]

Irrelevant. Israel acquired sovereignty.

Yes, Islamic colonization was a factor.


So, we are back to P F Tinmore cutting and pasting his “Ipso facto” snippet, out of context, and insisting that the Treaty of Lausanne somehow invented the “country of Pally’land”

Ten years of the same cut and paste nonsense.

Ten years of the same cut and paste nonsense.

Indeed, Zionists are slow learners.

Indeed, It is comical that Islamics invent history as a way to invent some imagined “country of Pal’istan”.

Don’t you find it odd that the Treaty of Lausanne, which you believe created your magical Kingdom of Pally’land, somehow neglected to mention such a place?

Deflection.

None of the new states were mentioned.

Deflection.

There was no mention of Pal'istan in the Treaty of Lausanne. You insist on creating / inventing a version of history that appeals to your Islamist ideology. The fact is, the Treaty of Lausanne never created a state of Pal'istan.

The Jewish people succeeded and achieved what Arabs-Moslems could not. You simply cannot reinvent your way around that.

BTW, this has all been addressed for you in a thread dedicated to your whining about Arab-Moslem failures and incompetence.

A quick search lists 7 (count’em), 7 pages (probably 100 separate instances), of your “ipso facto” cut and paste slogan. How many more times / threads do you need to spam?

The fact is, the Treaty of Lausanne never created a state of Pal'istan.

I have always agreed with that. Why do you keep bringing it up?

Why do you keep insisting thst the Treaty of Lausanne created citizenship within a non-existent country? The treaty didnt create a country that had instant citizens.

 

[Hollie]

Irrelevant. Israel acquired sovereignty.

Yes, Islamic colonization was a factor.


So, we are back to P F Tinmore cutting and pasting his “Ipso facto” snippet, out of context, and insisting that the Treaty of Lausanne somehow invented the “country of Pally’land”

Ten years of the same cut and paste nonsense.

Ten years of the same cut and paste nonsense.

Indeed, Zionists are slow learners.

Indeed, It is comical that Islamics invent history as a way to invent some imagined “country of Pal’istan”.

Don’t you find it odd that the Treaty of Lausanne, which you believe created your magical Kingdom of Pally’land, somehow neglected to mention such a place?

Deflection.

None of the new states were mentioned.

Deflection.

There was no mention of Pal'istan in the Treaty of Lausanne. You insist on creating / inventing a version of history that appeals to your Islamist ideology. The fact is, the Treaty of Lausanne never created a state of Pal'istan.

The Jewish people succeeded and achieved what Arabs-Moslems could not. You simply cannot reinvent your way around that.

BTW, this has all been addressed for you in a thread dedicated to your whining about Arab-Moslem failures and incompetence.

A quick search lists 7 (count’em), 7 pages (probably 100 separate instances), of your “ipso facto” cut and paste slogan. How many more times / threads do you need to spam?

The Jewish people succeeded and achieved what Arabs-Moslems could not. You simply cannot reinvent your way around that.

There you go back to your unsubstantiated talking point.

You can deny the fact of Israeli sovereignty but you make yourself appear to be quite the out-of-touch conspiracy theorist by doing so.

I gave you a reader's digest definition of sovereignty. Are there any attributes you wish to refute or do you prefer nust to cut and paste you usual slogans?

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm throwing a flag on this play.

There you go back to your unsubstantiated talking point.

(COMMENT)

Be specific, what are you claiming is "unsubstantiated?"

Israel is the highest ranked (22 of 138) country on the Human Develop Index anywhere in the MENA Region. Whereas the Palestinians are (119 or 138). The only country that ranks lower in the MENA Region is Iraq.

Israel has made more contributions in scientific research and developments than any Arab League Member nation. Israel has been awarded more Nobel Prizes than the entirety of the 22 Member Nation Arab League.

And in terms of economic potentional, the Arab Palestinians cannot even touch Israel.

So what are you talking about when you say "unsubstantiated?"

Has the Arab Palestinian ever met the Article 22 Criteria to stand alone?

Most Respectfully,
R

Israel is the highest ranked, blah, blah, blah...

That wasn't the question.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Indeed, Zionists are slow learners.

Indeed, It is comical that Islamics invent history as a way to invent some imagined “country of Pal’istan”.

Don’t you find it odd that the Treaty of Lausanne, which you believe created your magical Kingdom of Pally’land, somehow neglected to mention such a place?

Deflection.

None of the new states were mentioned.

Deflection.

There was no mention of Pal'istan in the Treaty of Lausanne. You insist on creating / inventing a version of history that appeals to your Islamist ideology. The fact is, the Treaty of Lausanne never created a state of Pal'istan.

The Jewish people succeeded and achieved what Arabs-Moslems could not. You simply cannot reinvent your way around that.

BTW, this has all been addressed for you in a thread dedicated to your whining about Arab-Moslem failures and incompetence.

A quick search lists 7 (count’em), 7 pages (probably 100 separate instances), of your “ipso facto” cut and paste slogan. How many more times / threads do you need to spam?

The Jewish people succeeded and achieved what Arabs-Moslems could not. You simply cannot reinvent your way around that.

There you go back to your unsubstantiated talking point.

You can deny the fact of Israeli sovereignty but you make yourself appear to be quite the out-of-touch conspiracy theorist by doing so.

I gave you a reader's digest definition of sovereignty. Are there any attributes you wish to refute or do you prefer nust to cut and paste you usual slogans?

Sure, defined territory.

 

[Hollie]

Indeed, It is comical that Islamics invent history as a way to invent some imagined “country of Pal’istan”.

Don’t you find it odd that the Treaty of Lausanne, which you believe created your magical Kingdom of Pally’land, somehow neglected to mention such a place?

Deflection.

None of the new states were mentioned.

Deflection.

There was no mention of Pal'istan in the Treaty of Lausanne. You insist on creating / inventing a version of history that appeals to your Islamist ideology. The fact is, the Treaty of Lausanne never created a state of Pal'istan.

The Jewish people succeeded and achieved what Arabs-Moslems could not. You simply cannot reinvent your way around that.

BTW, this has all been addressed for you in a thread dedicated to your whining about Arab-Moslem failures and incompetence.

A quick search lists 7 (count’em), 7 pages (probably 100 separate instances), of your “ipso facto” cut and paste slogan. How many more times / threads do you need to spam?

The Jewish people succeeded and achieved what Arabs-Moslems could not. You simply cannot reinvent your way around that.

There you go back to your unsubstantiated talking point.

You can deny the fact of Israeli sovereignty but you make yourself appear to be quite the out-of-touch conspiracy theorist by doing so.

I gave you a reader's digest definition of sovereignty. Are there any attributes you wish to refute or do you prefer nust to cut and paste you usual slogans?

Sure, defined territory.

Indeed, wrong.

Can you offer a defendable argument? A YouTube video perhaps?

 

[Shusha]

Tinmore likes to play fast and loose with the rules when we are talking about Jews. He constructs elaborate ‘international law’ based on what appeals to him at the moment.

I suspect he is going to argue that Palestine is a successor state to the Ottoman Empire and therefore all residents automatically obtained Palestinian citizenship. And if he wants to argue that, I’m happy to oblige him.

I have no idea how he is going to try to apply that in perpetuity while while ignoring any domestic nationality law. Or how he could possibly defend such a ridiculous notion.

The problem is that he wants to make 7 million Arabs somehow nationals of Israel, by right of law, and I just can’t see how he can manage that.

The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the perspective of public international law. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British government pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine.”123 And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality.”124
------------------
Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:

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

-------------------
The automatic, ipso facto, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:

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

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel

Sure. I’ve read the same article. So we agree that in 1924 there was an international de jure Palestinian nationality under the Mandate for Palestine.

We can probably also agree that there is a domestic de jure Palestinian nationality based in the Palestinian Citizenship Order of 1925.

(Please note this in no way suggests there was a State of Palestine extant at this time. The territory was governed by the British.)

So we agree that there was a specifically defined Palestinian nationality beginning in 1924.

What happened next?

The territory was governed by the British.

Irrelevant. The Mandates were temporarily assigned administration to render administrative assistance and advise. They did not acquire sovereignty.

What happened next?

Colonization.

So in your mind, what happened with respect to nationality after 1925? Or are you trying to argue that the territory is still governed by the 1925 Palestinian Citizenship Order?

Good question. Where can a citizenship go? Who has the authority to take it away?

Not the question. The question is what nationality law was in force after 1925. Is it still the 1925 Palestinian Citizenship Order. Or is something else?

To answer your question, though, there are several ways. One we have already seen is that a successor state, or changed sovereignty, normally (not always) changes the nationality of the residents as stipulated in the domestic nationality laws of the new state.

 

[Shusha]

Why do you keep insisting thst the Treaty of Lausanne created citizenship within a non-existent country? The treaty didnt create a country that had instant citizens.

He's not actually not wrong about the nationality. The Treaty of Lausanne, Articles 30 through 36 entrench in international law the naturalization process for those territories removed from Turkey and, while not specifically named, create distinct new and separate nationalities. It is after the ratification of this treaty that Palestinian nationality becomes distinct from Turkish, Jordanian, Iraqi, etc. Its based on residence, paternity and declaration.

The 1925 Palestinian Citizenship Order entrenches this more specifically in its own domestic law under the Mandate government.


So, arguing that the specific nationality of "Palestinian" was created by the Treaty of Lausanne isn't wrong. But it needs to be clear this did not create a "state" of Palestine because Palestine, in 1924, still lacked all the necessary requirements for statehood.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the perspective of public international law. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British government pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine.”123 And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality.”124
------------------
Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:

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

-------------------
The automatic, ipso facto, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:

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

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel

Sure. I’ve read the same article. So we agree that in 1924 there was an international de jure Palestinian nationality under the Mandate for Palestine.

We can probably also agree that there is a domestic de jure Palestinian nationality based in the Palestinian Citizenship Order of 1925.

(Please note this in no way suggests there was a State of Palestine extant at this time. The territory was governed by the British.)

So we agree that there was a specifically defined Palestinian nationality beginning in 1924.

What happened next?

The territory was governed by the British.

Irrelevant. The Mandates were temporarily assigned administration to render administrative assistance and advise. They did not acquire sovereignty.

What happened next?

Colonization.

So in your mind, what happened with respect to nationality after 1925? Or are you trying to argue that the territory is still governed by the 1925 Palestinian Citizenship Order?

Good question. Where can a citizenship go? Who has the authority to take it away?

Not the question. The question is what nationality law was in force after 1925. Is it still the 1925 Palestinian Citizenship Order. Or is something else?

To answer your question, though, there are several ways. One we have already seen is that a successor state, or changed sovereignty, normally (not always) changes the nationality of the residents as stipulated in the domestic nationality laws of the new state.

I haven't seen any changes.

 

[Shusha]

Sure. I’ve read the same article. So we agree that in 1924 there was an international de jure Palestinian nationality under the Mandate for Palestine.

We can probably also agree that there is a domestic de jure Palestinian nationality based in the Palestinian Citizenship Order of 1925.

(Please note this in no way suggests there was a State of Palestine extant at this time. The territory was governed by the British.)

So we agree that there was a specifically defined Palestinian nationality beginning in 1924.

What happened next?

The territory was governed by the British.

Irrelevant. The Mandates were temporarily assigned administration to render administrative assistance and advise. They did not acquire sovereignty.

What happened next?

Colonization.

So in your mind, what happened with respect to nationality after 1925? Or are you trying to argue that the territory is still governed by the 1925 Palestinian Citizenship Order?

Good question. Where can a citizenship go? Who has the authority to take it away?

Not the question. The question is what nationality law was in force after 1925. Is it still the 1925 Palestinian Citizenship Order. Or is something else?

To answer your question, though, there are several ways. One we have already seen is that a successor state, or changed sovereignty, normally (not always) changes the nationality of the residents as stipulated in the domestic nationality laws of the new state.

I haven't seen any changes.

So, your argument is that the 1925 Palestinian Citizenship Order is still in effect?

 

[Hollie]

Why do you keep insisting thst the Treaty of Lausanne created citizenship within a non-existent country? The treaty didnt create a country that had instant citizens.

He's not actually not wrong about the nationality. The Treaty of Lausanne, Articles 30 through 36 entrench in international law the naturalization process for those territories removed from Turkey and, while not specifically named, create distinct new and separate nationalities. It is after the ratification of this treaty that Palestinian nationality becomes distinct from Turkish, Jordanian, Iraqi, etc. Its based on residence, paternity and declaration.

The 1925 Palestinian Citizenship Order entrenches this more specifically in its own domestic law under the Mandate government.


So, arguing that the specific nationality of "Palestinian" was created by the Treaty of Lausanne isn't wrong. But it needs to be clear this did not create a "state" of Palestine because Palestine, in 1924, still lacked all the necessary requirements for statehood.

I believe the poster P F Tinmore is in error about the nationally element of the Treaty. Article 30 states: “...nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”
Treaty of Lausanne - World War I Document Archive

I believe in the context of the time and place of the Treaty, (my subjective opinion), there was anticipation that a soverign State would emerge and the residents of the territory would then become nationals of that state.

 

[Shusha]

Why do you keep insisting thst the Treaty of Lausanne created citizenship within a non-existent country? The treaty didnt create a country that had instant citizens.

He's not actually not wrong about the nationality. The Treaty of Lausanne, Articles 30 through 36 entrench in international law the naturalization process for those territories removed from Turkey and, while not specifically named, create distinct new and separate nationalities. It is after the ratification of this treaty that Palestinian nationality becomes distinct from Turkish, Jordanian, Iraqi, etc. Its based on residence, paternity and declaration.

The 1925 Palestinian Citizenship Order entrenches this more specifically in its own domestic law under the Mandate government.


So, arguing that the specific nationality of "Palestinian" was created by the Treaty of Lausanne isn't wrong. But it needs to be clear this did not create a "state" of Palestine because Palestine, in 1924, still lacked all the necessary requirements for statehood.

I believe the poster P F Tinmore is in error about the nationally element of the Treaty. Article 30 states: “...nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”
Treaty of Lausanne - World War I Document Archive

I believe in the context of the time and place of the Treaty, (my subjective opinion), there was anticipation that a soverign State would emerge and the residents of the territory would then become nationals of that state.

Yes, we agree. It was a temporary designation for the Mandate, and has no effective meaning outside it. And, as Tinmore has already pointed out, the rules of state succession, as well as the language used in Article 30, suggest that the intent was for the residents (and others, specifically Jewish returnees) would hold the nationality of the new State, according to the domestic laws of that new State.

Tinmore is correct that a distinct nationality "Palestinian" was created, in law, in 1924-5. But where he goes from there is utterly ridiculous.