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

[RoccoR]

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

OK, (I think) that the Treaty of Lausanne was certainly clear at the time by the parties to the Treaty. The Arab Palestinians which constituted the population of the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) were discussed in the Treaty as assuming the citizenship of the "State" that would be created in the context of both:

◈ As an interim meassure, so that during the Civil Administration that followed the OETA, the Government of Palestine could provide all that which was necessary something other than "stateless persons."

◈ The 1925 Palestinian Citizenship Order, only relevent to the territories under the Administration of the Mandate, would then be superseded when the population was able to stand alone; meeting the criteria of Territory Article 22.​

Nowhere in the Treaty of Lausanne is there a one-sided promise extended to the Arab Palestinians that obligated the Allied Powers to render a state unto the Arab Palestinians. The Treaty of Lausanne was an arrangement established between the parties to the agreement.

I believe the poster P F Tinmore is in error about the national element of the Treaty. Article 30 states: “...nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”

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

(COMMENT)

The intent of Article 30 was to ensure that, whatever the result, there would be no stateless persons. That all the people in the territory to which the Mandate applied, had a nationality and was not a refugee.

The Arab Palestinians of the territory to which the Mandate applied, declined to participate in the establishment of self-government so that they would be considered able to stand by themselves. In fact, the Arabs of the Region openly fought against the establishment of participatory programs to establish self-governing institutions. (This is the State that our friend "Hollie" calls: the "anticipation that a sovereign State would emerge.")

THUS, Article 22 became an unfulfilled obligation (that eventually had to be discarded) not because of anything the Mandatory did (or did not do), but because the Mandatory could no overcome the objectionable behavior problems of the Arab Palestinians. Over time, the ever-increasing and uncontrolled outburst of anger and frustration degenerated into Criminal Acts directed against Israel by factional anti-Israeli elements (that dawned themselves revolutionary like names) with the intention of assuming control over the entirety of the territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine.

To this day, the character of the territories in dispute, have no defined name.

◈ While the Arab Palestinians say it is not so, there is a struggle between HAMAS (Islamic Resistance Movement in Gaza) and the Fatah (once known as the Palestinian National Liberation Movement) for the recognition and effective government over all the Arab Palestinian Territories that would like to be known as the State of Palestine.

◈ To this day, the Arab Palestinians that squabble over the control of the territory have not been able to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Israel.

◈ To this day, the Arab Palestinians that squabble over the control of the territory have not been able to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of Israel.

◈ To this day, the Arab Palestinians that squabble over the control of the territory have not been able to pursue in good faith negotiations or conclude a general peace arangement to reduce international tensions and strengthen confidence in the region.​

Now, am I saying that Israel has been perfect with respect to the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations (No State is Perfect)? (RHETORICAL) NO! But Israel is the most successful state in the Region, by far. Israel ranks 13th (of 156) as the happiness of nations in the world (See: 2019 World Happiness Report) or (See: World Happiness Report 2019). Israel ranks higher than any country in Africa, the Middle East, Asia and the entity of the Western Hemisphere (except Canada which ranks 9th). And in the Region Ranking of Economic Freedoms in 2019, Israel is second only to the UAE:

​

Many issues can be discussed over the way in which the State of Israel came into being. But it is clear that, in comparison to all the nations considered within its region, whether we talk about the Human Development Index, the Economic Freedom Index and the Happiness Index, more is right about Israel than is wrong.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

◈ The 1925 Palestinian Citizenship Order, only relevent to the territories under the Administration of the Mandate, would then be superseded when the population was able to stand alone; meeting the criteria of Territory Article 22.

Link?

 

[P F Tinmore]

In fact, the Arabs of the Region openly fought against the establishment of participatory programs to establish self-governing institutions.

The Palestinians consistently begged Britain to form a democratic government. Britain refused.

 

[Shusha]

◈ The 1925 Palestinian Citizenship Order, only relevent to the territories under the Administration of the Mandate, would then be superseded when the population was able to stand alone; meeting the criteria of Territory Article 22.

Link?

It would be by the rule of state succession as you have already brought up.

Why wouldn’t it be?

 

[P F Tinmore]

◈ The 1925 Palestinian Citizenship Order, only relevent to the territories under the Administration of the Mandate, would then be superseded when the population was able to stand alone; meeting the criteria of Territory Article 22.

Link?

It would be by the rule of state succession as you have already brought up.

Why wouldn’t it be?

The Treaty of Lausanne was a succession treaty. There hasn't been one since.

 

[Hollie]

In fact, the Arabs of the Region openly fought against the establishment of participatory programs to establish self-governing institutions.

The Palestinians consistently begged Britain to form a democratic government. Britain refused.

Link?

 

[Hollie]

◈ The 1925 Palestinian Citizenship Order, only relevent to the territories under the Administration of the Mandate, would then be superseded when the population was able to stand alone; meeting the criteria of Territory Article 22.

Link?

It would be by the rule of state succession as you have already brought up.

Why wouldn’t it be?

The Treaty of Lausanne was a succession treaty. There hasn't been one since.

No, It was not a succession treaty.

 

[RoccoR]

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

The answer here does not lay within a U-Tube Video or Therorist web page link. It actually requires a little gray matter exercise.

◈ The 1925 Palestinian Citizenship Order, only relevent to the territories under the Administration of the Mandate, would then be superseded when the population was able to stand alone; meeting the criteria of Territory Article 22.

Link?

(COMMENT)

TWO POINTS

Once a country is stood-up, and stands on its own, "equality" kicks-in. Immigration, Naturalization, Citizenship all become "domestic issues" subject to domestic legislation. This is true for every nation.

22. 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.

• 
  “The British Government desired to establish a self-government in Palestine, but to proceed in this direction by stages…. It had been announced that the nominated Advisory Council was to be the first stage. The second stage would have been a Legislative Council without an Arab majority. If this worked satisfactorily, the third stage, after a lapse of perhaps same years, would have been a constitution on more democratic lines.”

In practice it proved impossible even to initiate this policy of gradual constitutional development. From 1922 until the present day, the High Commissioner has governed Palestine with the aid of Councils consisting exclusively of British officials.

In fact, the Arabs of the Region openly fought against the establishment of participatory programs to establish self-governing institutions.

The Palestinians consistently begged Britain to form a democratic government. Britain refused.

(COMMENT)

Nor did the Arab Palestinians want to participate in the "Steps Preparatory to Independence." This is the bedrock as to why the Arab Palestinians are in the crisis that they face today.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

The answer here does not lay within a U-Tube Video or Therorist web page link. It actually requires a little gray matter exercise.

◈ The 1925 Palestinian Citizenship Order, only relevent to the territories under the Administration of the Mandate, would then be superseded when the population was able to stand alone; meeting the criteria of Territory Article 22.

Link?

(COMMENT)

TWO POINTS

Once a country is stood-up, and stands on its own, "equality" kicks-in. Immigration, Naturalization, Citizenship all become "domestic issues" subject to domestic legislation. This is true for every nation.

22. 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.

• 
  “The British Government desired to establish a self-government in Palestine, but to proceed in this direction by stages…. It had been announced that the nominated Advisory Council was to be the first stage. The second stage would have been a Legislative Council without an Arab majority. If this worked satisfactorily, the third stage, after a lapse of perhaps same years, would have been a constitution on more democratic lines.”

In practice it proved impossible even to initiate this policy of gradual constitutional development. From 1922 until the present day, the High Commissioner has governed Palestine with the aid of Councils consisting exclusively of British officials.

In fact, the Arabs of the Region openly fought against the establishment of participatory programs to establish self-governing institutions.

The Palestinians consistently begged Britain to form a democratic government. Britain refused.

(COMMENT)

Nor did the Arab Palestinians want to participate in the "Steps Preparatory to Independence." This is the bedrock as to why the Arab Palestinians are in the crisis that they face today.

Most Respectfully,
R

It had been announced that the nominated Advisory Council was to be the first stage. The second stage would have been a Legislative Council without an Arab majority.

Britain was always pulling this shit. The Palestinians were the Majority. Britain was waiting for the Jews to become the majority before they would create a democratic government. That is why they were there for 30 years and didn't accomplish shit.

 

[P F Tinmore]

To this day, the character of the territories in dispute, have no defined name.

What dispute?

The Palestinians know what it is and where it is.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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.

A dispute regarding the status of the territories was settled by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. It was decided that Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties.

State of Palestine: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia​

Palestine was widely recognized as a state all through the Mandate period.

 

[Shusha]

◈ The 1925 Palestinian Citizenship Order, only relevent to the territories under the Administration of the Mandate, would then be superseded when the population was able to stand alone; meeting the criteria of Territory Article 22.

Link?

It would be by the rule of state succession as you have already brought up.

Why wouldn’t it be?

The Treaty of Lausanne was a succession treaty. There hasn't been one since.

Walk me through your thinking here. You are saying that the Palestinian nationality was created in 1924/25 and was the successor to the Ottoman Empire, as governed by Britain until they were able to 'stand on their own', right?

So, what happened? The British abandoned the territory. The territory becomes 'ungoverned'. The idea of a national is a legal relationship between the government and the governed. With no government -- what happens to the nationality? How can they be nationals of anything when there is no government to form that legal relationship with? Did they become stateless or did they somehow retain their "Palestinian" citizenship?

Also, if, as you claim, the sovereignty passed directly from the Ottoman Empire to the people (since the Mandate did not acquire sovereignty, according to you) why isn't the succession treaty of Lausanne enough to create the fulfillment of the Palestinian nationality as a legal status between those nationals and the new State which arose to fulfill the Mandate?

Did Jordan, as an example, have to fulfill some new requirement for a succession treaty? Or was the Treaty of Lausanne enough to transfer nationality from the Ottoman Empire to the new Jordan nationals?

 

[Shusha]

Palestine was widely recognized as a state all through the Mandate period.

Yeah, no. It was not. While the nationals existed as a separate citizenship, it was not an independent state. It was under the control of Britain. In fact, the Palestinian Citizenship Order 1925 was based partly on British law, for exactly that reason.

 

[Shusha]

Britain was waiting for the Jews to become the majority before they would create a democratic government. That is why they were there for 30 years and didn't accomplish shit.

Britain was obligated, as conditions of the Mandate and Treaties relating to the Mandate, to fulfill the requirement of Jewish return. It could not release the Mandate until it had an effective Jewish or Jewish and Arab governments to release the Mandate to.

 

[RoccoR]

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

OH Please.

It had been announced that the nominated Advisory Council was to be the first stage. The second stage would have been a Legislative Council without an Arab majority.

Britain was always pulling this shit. The Palestinians were the Majority. Britain was waiting for the Jews to become the majority before they would create a democratic government. That is why they were there for 30 years and didn't accomplish shit.

(COMMENT)

I tend to look at it as → a case of the UK being there for 30 years → faced with an obstructionist Arab Population.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Hollie]

Palestine was widely recognized as a state all through the Mandate period.

It must be true. You read it on Wikipedia.

Time to circle back to “the Treaty of Lausanne created the state of Pal’istan”.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

OH Please.

It had been announced that the nominated Advisory Council was to be the first stage. The second stage would have been a Legislative Council without an Arab majority.

Britain was always pulling this shit. The Palestinians were the Majority. Britain was waiting for the Jews to become the majority before they would create a democratic government. That is why they were there for 30 years and didn't accomplish shit.

(COMMENT)

I tend to look at it as → a case of the UK being there for 30 years → faced with an obstructionist Arab Population.


Most Respectfully,
R

Indeed, the Palestinians always opposed the settler colonial project.

 

[Hollie]

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

OH Please.

It had been announced that the nominated Advisory Council was to be the first stage. The second stage would have been a Legislative Council without an Arab majority.

Britain was always pulling this shit. The Palestinians were the Majority. Britain was waiting for the Jews to become the majority before they would create a democratic government. That is why they were there for 30 years and didn't accomplish shit.

(COMMENT)

I tend to look at it as → a case of the UK being there for 30 years → faced with an obstructionist Arab Population.


Most Respectfully,
R

Indeed, the Palestinians always opposed the settler colonial project.

Actually, the Arabs-Moslems were the settler colonial project.

 

[Sixties Fan]

IMRA - Saturday, July 27, 2019 Weekly Commentary: Palestinian Abandonment of Oslo Agreements Window of Opportunity?

 

[RoccoR]

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

OH no, that is entirely wrong. Palestine was not recognized as a state.

Palestine was widely recognized as a state all through the Mandate period.

It must be true. You read it on Wikipedia.

Time to circle back to “the Treaty of Lausanne created the state of Pal’istan”.

(COMMENT ONE)

It was recognized as territory to which the Mandate for Palestine applied.

Palestine had a Mandate Government with the responsibility and authorities as outlined in "Posting #8265."

Encyclopedia of Public International Law
ADMINISTRATIVE, JUDICIAL AND LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES
1. Historical Evolution of Legal Rules​

Every ~ State may exercise sovereign acts in all territories where no other nation has previously established exclusive jurisdiction or where no other prohibition is valid (~ Sovereignty). In contrast, however, every nation has a right to expect that its ~ territorial sovereignty will be respected by other nations.​

GOVERNMENT
1. Notion​

In its broadest se~se government, in addition to, population" and territory, is one of the essential
elements which qualify a ~ State ~ as a ~ subject of international law. It is the active element, the
organizational machinery which enables the State to enter into ~ international relations, exercise
its rights and fulfill its duties (~ States, Fundamental Rights and Duties). As legal entities "States can act only by and through _their agents and representatives" (~ German Settlers in Poland (Advisory Opinion), PCIJ, Series B, No.6 (1923) p. 1, at p. 22), i.e. their organs.​

(COMMENT TWO)

I know that in these discussions, we tend to throw these terms around loosely. But you have to understand, that before you (and ask yourself who the "you" is) can have a "State", you have to have a functioning Government. All the things that make up a functioning government are listed in Posting #8265, and in the hands of the British; NOT the Arab Palestinians. And as you know, the Arab Palestinians declined to participate in the development in self-governing institutions for the third time in 1923.

"From 1922 until the present day, the High Commissioner has governed Palestine with the aid of Councils consisting exclusively of British officials." (A/AC.14/8 UK History of Administration 2 October 1947)​

Yes, there was a government, no it had no Arab Component at all during the Mandate Period. So, there was no "State" in the territory. There was the Mandate Government which acted in a controlling manner.

Most Respectfully,
R