Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Forgot something; Jordan destroyed JEWISH CEMETARIES and other JEWISH Holy Sites which was against the “ Armistice Agreement “ and Jordan DENIED Israel’s right to those sites which was also AGAINST the “ agreement “ If one or more parties break it; other parties are NOT legally bound to followIt is not as simple as all that.
The land of Palestine was transferred to Palestine by treaty. That territory was defined by international borders.
The Palestinians became citizens of Palestine by international law, by treaty, and by domestic law. Why did the Treaty of Lausanne give citizenship to the Palestinians? Because that is the law. Why did the British give citizenship to the Palestinians? Because that is the law.
Treaties are legal instruments. They must conform to international law. No valid treaty can violate the inalienable rights of a people.
The territory was not "transferred" to anyone, at any time. There was no sovereign to transfer it to. Its not like one country ceding it in treaty and another taking it up. The territory under the Mandate for Palestine (like all the other Mandates) was under Mandate for exactly the reason that there was no sovereign to pass it to. The point of a Mandate is to govern in trust until the people are capable of self-determination and government themselves. This whole concept of "transfer of territory' is a red herring you keep throwing up as a distraction from the real issues.
What WAS part of the legal documentation of the time was the beneficiary of the territory of Palestine -- that is -- the people who were to have self-determination in that territory, the people for whom the British held the territory in trust. The legal documentation of the time (which is still in force today and can not be abrogated) tells us that it was the Jewish people. Further, the documentation tells us that the Jewish people became the beneficiaries of that territory by RIGHT due to their historical sovereignty in that territory. No other peoples are mentioned. So, the STARTING point of the whole conversation is that the territory belongs to the Jewish people, by right, by law.
Now, it IS true that all of the residents of the territory, and all the Jewish immigrants became citizens of what was then called "Palestine" (as a territorial designation -- NOT as a sovereign). Aren't some still citizens of Palestine? And some citizens of Palestine by its new sovereign name -- Israel?
The question you should be asking is why two different citizenships developed in the territory.You wouldn't have a link for that, would you?became citizens of what was then called "Palestine" (as a territorial designation -- NOT as a sovereign).
Of course not.
You need a link to, "Palestine isn't a country"?
I provided a link which stated the Arabs recognized Jordan’s Sovereignty over the W. Bank and E. Jerusalem before 1950 and at that time the land was OFFICIALLY recognized as part of Jordan but of course there is no response.
How does that fit into the Palestinian's inalienable rights?No links?It is not as simple as all that.Yes, both the San Remo and the Palestine Mandate are documents based on that covenant.ARTICLE 20.
The Members of the League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.
In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations.
Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations
Neither mention anything about political rights of Arabs living there.
According to international law, the Jewish people are the sole beneficiary of Self-Determination in the land that was Mandatory Palestine. The rights of the Jewish People to Palestine are enshrined in three legally binding international treaties. These rights have not expired and are still in full force and effect.
In fact it's even enshrined in US law:
Any attempt to negate the Jewish people's right to Palestine — Eretz-Israel — and to deny them access and control in the area designated for the Jewish people by the League of Nations is an actionable infringement of both international law and the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution), which dictates that Treaties "shall be the supreme Law of the Land".
The land of Palestine was transferred to Palestine by treaty. That territory was defined by international borders.
The Palestinians became citizens of Palestine by international law, by treaty, and by domestic law. Why did the Treaty of Lausanne give citizenship to the Palestinians? Because that is the law. Why did the British give citizenship to the Palestinians? Because that is the law.
Treaties are legal instruments. They must conform to international law. No valid treaty can violate the inalienable rights of a people.
"The land of Palestine was transferred to Palestine by treaty. That territory was defined by international borders."
-- Yes and all of that specifically defined the sovereign boundaries of the Jewish National Home.
The Palestinians became citizens of Palestine by international law, by treaty, and by domestic law.
-- Yes, and in violation of international law, the Jewish people were precluded from exercising this right.
Why did the Treaty of Lausanne give citizenship to the Palestinians? Because that is the law. Why did the British give citizenship to the Palestinians? Because that is the law.
-- Treaty of Lausannne only ensured that former Turkish subjects would become citizens of future local states. Previous treaties that preceded Lausanne, already established Palestine as a Jewish National Home, this was the sole source of Britain's authority to issue Palestinian citizenship.
Jewish National Home is international law, and a Palestinian treaty.
"Treaties are legal instruments. They must conform to international law. No valid treaty can violate the inalienable rights of a people."
-- Treaties ARE international law.
I agree, no valid treaty can violate the inalienable rights of the Jewish Nation in any part of Palestine.
The 1920 San Remo Resolution
This was passed by the San Remo Supreme Council. This council was given the power of disposition by the Great Powers and was convened for the purpose of dividing what was the Ottoman Empire, i.e, redrawing the borders of the Middle East.
The relevant resolution reads as follows:
"The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust... the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory [authority that] will be responsible for putting into effect the [Balfour] declaration... in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people."
Treaties themselves have no statute of limitations, so their rights go on ad infinitum.
Therefore any borders assigned by treaty to Palestine are sovereign borders of a Jewish Nation.
How does that fit into the Palestinian's inalienable rights?No links?It is not as simple as all that.Yes, both the San Remo and the Palestine Mandate are documents based on that covenant.
Neither mention anything about political rights of Arabs living there.
According to international law, the Jewish people are the sole beneficiary of Self-Determination in the land that was Mandatory Palestine. The rights of the Jewish People to Palestine are enshrined in three legally binding international treaties. These rights have not expired and are still in full force and effect.
In fact it's even enshrined in US law:
Any attempt to negate the Jewish people's right to Palestine — Eretz-Israel — and to deny them access and control in the area designated for the Jewish people by the League of Nations is an actionable infringement of both international law and the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution), which dictates that Treaties "shall be the supreme Law of the Land".
The land of Palestine was transferred to Palestine by treaty. That territory was defined by international borders.
The Palestinians became citizens of Palestine by international law, by treaty, and by domestic law. Why did the Treaty of Lausanne give citizenship to the Palestinians? Because that is the law. Why did the British give citizenship to the Palestinians? Because that is the law.
Treaties are legal instruments. They must conform to international law. No valid treaty can violate the inalienable rights of a people.
"The land of Palestine was transferred to Palestine by treaty. That territory was defined by international borders."
-- Yes and all of that specifically defined the sovereign boundaries of the Jewish National Home.
The Palestinians became citizens of Palestine by international law, by treaty, and by domestic law.
-- Yes, and in violation of international law, the Jewish people were precluded from exercising this right.
Why did the Treaty of Lausanne give citizenship to the Palestinians? Because that is the law. Why did the British give citizenship to the Palestinians? Because that is the law.
-- Treaty of Lausannne only ensured that former Turkish subjects would become citizens of future local states. Previous treaties that preceded Lausanne, already established Palestine as a Jewish National Home, this was the sole source of Britain's authority to issue Palestinian citizenship.
Jewish National Home is international law, and a Palestinian treaty.
"Treaties are legal instruments. They must conform to international law. No valid treaty can violate the inalienable rights of a people."
-- Treaties ARE international law.
I agree, no valid treaty can violate the inalienable rights of the Jewish Nation in any part of Palestine.
The 1920 San Remo Resolution
This was passed by the San Remo Supreme Council. This council was given the power of disposition by the Great Powers and was convened for the purpose of dividing what was the Ottoman Empire, i.e, redrawing the borders of the Middle East.
The relevant resolution reads as follows:
"The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust... the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory [authority that] will be responsible for putting into effect the [Balfour] declaration... in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people."
Treaties themselves have no statute of limitations, so their rights go on ad infinitum.
Therefore any borders assigned by treaty to Palestine are sovereign borders of a Jewish Nation.
in·al·ien·a·ble [in áylee ənəb'l]
adj
impossible to take away: not able to be transferred or taken away, e.g. because of being protected by law
Nobody has the authority to violate a people's inalienable rights. Not even self appointed "world leaders."
How does that fit into the Palestinian's inalienable rights?No links?It is not as simple as all that.Yes, both the San Remo and the Palestine Mandate are documents based on that covenant.
Neither mention anything about political rights of Arabs living there.
According to international law, the Jewish people are the sole beneficiary of Self-Determination in the land that was Mandatory Palestine. The rights of the Jewish People to Palestine are enshrined in three legally binding international treaties. These rights have not expired and are still in full force and effect.
In fact it's even enshrined in US law:
Any attempt to negate the Jewish people's right to Palestine — Eretz-Israel — and to deny them access and control in the area designated for the Jewish people by the League of Nations is an actionable infringement of both international law and the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution), which dictates that Treaties "shall be the supreme Law of the Land".
The land of Palestine was transferred to Palestine by treaty. That territory was defined by international borders.
The Palestinians became citizens of Palestine by international law, by treaty, and by domestic law. Why did the Treaty of Lausanne give citizenship to the Palestinians? Because that is the law. Why did the British give citizenship to the Palestinians? Because that is the law.
Treaties are legal instruments. They must conform to international law. No valid treaty can violate the inalienable rights of a people.
"The land of Palestine was transferred to Palestine by treaty. That territory was defined by international borders."
-- Yes and all of that specifically defined the sovereign boundaries of the Jewish National Home.
The Palestinians became citizens of Palestine by international law, by treaty, and by domestic law.
-- Yes, and in violation of international law, the Jewish people were precluded from exercising this right.
Why did the Treaty of Lausanne give citizenship to the Palestinians? Because that is the law. Why did the British give citizenship to the Palestinians? Because that is the law.
-- Treaty of Lausannne only ensured that former Turkish subjects would become citizens of future local states. Previous treaties that preceded Lausanne, already established Palestine as a Jewish National Home, this was the sole source of Britain's authority to issue Palestinian citizenship.
Jewish National Home is international law, and a Palestinian treaty.
"Treaties are legal instruments. They must conform to international law. No valid treaty can violate the inalienable rights of a people."
-- Treaties ARE international law.
I agree, no valid treaty can violate the inalienable rights of the Jewish Nation in any part of Palestine.
The 1920 San Remo Resolution
This was passed by the San Remo Supreme Council. This council was given the power of disposition by the Great Powers and was convened for the purpose of dividing what was the Ottoman Empire, i.e, redrawing the borders of the Middle East.
The relevant resolution reads as follows:
"The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust... the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory [authority that] will be responsible for putting into effect the [Balfour] declaration... in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people."
Treaties themselves have no statute of limitations, so their rights go on ad infinitum.
Therefore any borders assigned by treaty to Palestine are sovereign borders of a Jewish Nation.
in·al·ien·a·ble [in áylee ənəb'l]
adj
impossible to take away: not able to be transferred or taken away, e.g. because of being protected by law
Nobody has the authority to violate a people's inalienable rights. Not even self appointed "world leaders."
How does that fit into the Palestinian's inalienable rights?No links?It is not as simple as all that.Yes, both the San Remo and the Palestine Mandate are documents based on that covenant.
Neither mention anything about political rights of Arabs living there.
According to international law, the Jewish people are the sole beneficiary of Self-Determination in the land that was Mandatory Palestine. The rights of the Jewish People to Palestine are enshrined in three legally binding international treaties. These rights have not expired and are still in full force and effect.
In fact it's even enshrined in US law:
Any attempt to negate the Jewish people's right to Palestine — Eretz-Israel — and to deny them access and control in the area designated for the Jewish people by the League of Nations is an actionable infringement of both international law and the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution), which dictates that Treaties "shall be the supreme Law of the Land".
The land of Palestine was transferred to Palestine by treaty. That territory was defined by international borders.
The Palestinians became citizens of Palestine by international law, by treaty, and by domestic law. Why did the Treaty of Lausanne give citizenship to the Palestinians? Because that is the law. Why did the British give citizenship to the Palestinians? Because that is the law.
Treaties are legal instruments. They must conform to international law. No valid treaty can violate the inalienable rights of a people.
"The land of Palestine was transferred to Palestine by treaty. That territory was defined by international borders."
-- Yes and all of that specifically defined the sovereign boundaries of the Jewish National Home.
The Palestinians became citizens of Palestine by international law, by treaty, and by domestic law.
-- Yes, and in violation of international law, the Jewish people were precluded from exercising this right.
Why did the Treaty of Lausanne give citizenship to the Palestinians? Because that is the law. Why did the British give citizenship to the Palestinians? Because that is the law.
-- Treaty of Lausannne only ensured that former Turkish subjects would become citizens of future local states. Previous treaties that preceded Lausanne, already established Palestine as a Jewish National Home, this was the sole source of Britain's authority to issue Palestinian citizenship.
Jewish National Home is international law, and a Palestinian treaty.
"Treaties are legal instruments. They must conform to international law. No valid treaty can violate the inalienable rights of a people."
-- Treaties ARE international law.
I agree, no valid treaty can violate the inalienable rights of the Jewish Nation in any part of Palestine.
The 1920 San Remo Resolution
This was passed by the San Remo Supreme Council. This council was given the power of disposition by the Great Powers and was convened for the purpose of dividing what was the Ottoman Empire, i.e, redrawing the borders of the Middle East.
The relevant resolution reads as follows:
"The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust... the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory [authority that] will be responsible for putting into effect the [Balfour] declaration... in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people."
Treaties themselves have no statute of limitations, so their rights go on ad infinitum.
Therefore any borders assigned by treaty to Palestine are sovereign borders of a Jewish Nation.
in·al·ien·a·ble [in áylee ənəb'l]
adj
impossible to take away: not able to be transferred or taken away, e.g. because of being protected by law
Nobody has the authority to violate a people's inalienable rights. Not even self appointed "world leaders."
Deflection.How does that fit into the Palestinian's inalienable rights?No links?It is not as simple as all that.
The land of Palestine was transferred to Palestine by treaty. That territory was defined by international borders.
The Palestinians became citizens of Palestine by international law, by treaty, and by domestic law. Why did the Treaty of Lausanne give citizenship to the Palestinians? Because that is the law. Why did the British give citizenship to the Palestinians? Because that is the law.
Treaties are legal instruments. They must conform to international law. No valid treaty can violate the inalienable rights of a people.
"The land of Palestine was transferred to Palestine by treaty. That territory was defined by international borders."
-- Yes and all of that specifically defined the sovereign boundaries of the Jewish National Home.
The Palestinians became citizens of Palestine by international law, by treaty, and by domestic law.
-- Yes, and in violation of international law, the Jewish people were precluded from exercising this right.
Why did the Treaty of Lausanne give citizenship to the Palestinians? Because that is the law. Why did the British give citizenship to the Palestinians? Because that is the law.
-- Treaty of Lausannne only ensured that former Turkish subjects would become citizens of future local states. Previous treaties that preceded Lausanne, already established Palestine as a Jewish National Home, this was the sole source of Britain's authority to issue Palestinian citizenship.
Jewish National Home is international law, and a Palestinian treaty.
"Treaties are legal instruments. They must conform to international law. No valid treaty can violate the inalienable rights of a people."
-- Treaties ARE international law.
I agree, no valid treaty can violate the inalienable rights of the Jewish Nation in any part of Palestine.
The 1920 San Remo Resolution
This was passed by the San Remo Supreme Council. This council was given the power of disposition by the Great Powers and was convened for the purpose of dividing what was the Ottoman Empire, i.e, redrawing the borders of the Middle East.
The relevant resolution reads as follows:
"The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust... the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory [authority that] will be responsible for putting into effect the [Balfour] declaration... in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people."
Treaties themselves have no statute of limitations, so their rights go on ad infinitum.
Therefore any borders assigned by treaty to Palestine are sovereign borders of a Jewish Nation.
in·al·ien·a·ble [in áylee ənəb'l]
adj
impossible to take away: not able to be transferred or taken away, e.g. because of being protected by law
Nobody has the authority to violate a people's inalienable rights. Not even self appointed "world leaders."
The above would seem to clash with your Pom Pom flailing for Hamas and their Islamo-fascist charter.
No it doesn't.How does that fit into the Palestinian's inalienable rights?No links?It is not as simple as all that.
The land of Palestine was transferred to Palestine by treaty. That territory was defined by international borders.
The Palestinians became citizens of Palestine by international law, by treaty, and by domestic law. Why did the Treaty of Lausanne give citizenship to the Palestinians? Because that is the law. Why did the British give citizenship to the Palestinians? Because that is the law.
Treaties are legal instruments. They must conform to international law. No valid treaty can violate the inalienable rights of a people.
"The land of Palestine was transferred to Palestine by treaty. That territory was defined by international borders."
-- Yes and all of that specifically defined the sovereign boundaries of the Jewish National Home.
The Palestinians became citizens of Palestine by international law, by treaty, and by domestic law.
-- Yes, and in violation of international law, the Jewish people were precluded from exercising this right.
Why did the Treaty of Lausanne give citizenship to the Palestinians? Because that is the law. Why did the British give citizenship to the Palestinians? Because that is the law.
-- Treaty of Lausannne only ensured that former Turkish subjects would become citizens of future local states. Previous treaties that preceded Lausanne, already established Palestine as a Jewish National Home, this was the sole source of Britain's authority to issue Palestinian citizenship.
Jewish National Home is international law, and a Palestinian treaty.
"Treaties are legal instruments. They must conform to international law. No valid treaty can violate the inalienable rights of a people."
-- Treaties ARE international law.
I agree, no valid treaty can violate the inalienable rights of the Jewish Nation in any part of Palestine.
The 1920 San Remo Resolution
This was passed by the San Remo Supreme Council. This council was given the power of disposition by the Great Powers and was convened for the purpose of dividing what was the Ottoman Empire, i.e, redrawing the borders of the Middle East.
The relevant resolution reads as follows:
"The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust... the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory [authority that] will be responsible for putting into effect the [Balfour] declaration... in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people."
Treaties themselves have no statute of limitations, so their rights go on ad infinitum.
Therefore any borders assigned by treaty to Palestine are sovereign borders of a Jewish Nation.
in·al·ien·a·ble [in áylee ənəb'l]
adj
impossible to take away: not able to be transferred or taken away, e.g. because of being protected by law
Nobody has the authority to violate a people's inalienable rights. Not even self appointed "world leaders."
The San Remo Resolution assures that Palestinians can exercise their inalienable rights, and reconstitute their country as a national homeland, making it a binding obligation of international law.
The US is bound by that obligation as well.
Deflection.How does that fit into the Palestinian's inalienable rights?No links?"The land of Palestine was transferred to Palestine by treaty. That territory was defined by international borders."
-- Yes and all of that specifically defined the sovereign boundaries of the Jewish National Home.
The Palestinians became citizens of Palestine by international law, by treaty, and by domestic law.
-- Yes, and in violation of international law, the Jewish people were precluded from exercising this right.
Why did the Treaty of Lausanne give citizenship to the Palestinians? Because that is the law. Why did the British give citizenship to the Palestinians? Because that is the law.
-- Treaty of Lausannne only ensured that former Turkish subjects would become citizens of future local states. Previous treaties that preceded Lausanne, already established Palestine as a Jewish National Home, this was the sole source of Britain's authority to issue Palestinian citizenship.
Jewish National Home is international law, and a Palestinian treaty.
"Treaties are legal instruments. They must conform to international law. No valid treaty can violate the inalienable rights of a people."
-- Treaties ARE international law.
I agree, no valid treaty can violate the inalienable rights of the Jewish Nation in any part of Palestine.
The 1920 San Remo Resolution
This was passed by the San Remo Supreme Council. This council was given the power of disposition by the Great Powers and was convened for the purpose of dividing what was the Ottoman Empire, i.e, redrawing the borders of the Middle East.
The relevant resolution reads as follows:
"The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust... the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory [authority that] will be responsible for putting into effect the [Balfour] declaration... in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people."
Treaties themselves have no statute of limitations, so their rights go on ad infinitum.
Therefore any borders assigned by treaty to Palestine are sovereign borders of a Jewish Nation.
in·al·ien·a·ble [in áylee ənəb'l]
adj
impossible to take away: not able to be transferred or taken away, e.g. because of being protected by law
Nobody has the authority to violate a people's inalienable rights. Not even self appointed "world leaders."
The above would seem to clash with your Pom Pom flailing for Hamas and their Islamo-fascist charter.
I never said that.Deflection.How does that fit into the Palestinian's inalienable rights?No links?
The 1920 San Remo Resolution
This was passed by the San Remo Supreme Council. This council was given the power of disposition by the Great Powers and was convened for the purpose of dividing what was the Ottoman Empire, i.e, redrawing the borders of the Middle East.
The relevant resolution reads as follows:
"The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust... the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory [authority that] will be responsible for putting into effect the [Balfour] declaration... in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people."
Treaties themselves have no statute of limitations, so their rights go on ad infinitum.
Therefore any borders assigned by treaty to Palestine are sovereign borders of a Jewish Nation.
in·al·ien·a·ble [in áylee ənəb'l]
adj
impossible to take away: not able to be transferred or taken away, e.g. because of being protected by law
Nobody has the authority to violate a people's inalienable rights. Not even self appointed "world leaders."
The above would seem to clash with your Pom Pom flailing for Hamas and their Islamo-fascist charter.
I understand you're embarrassed at being called out for demanding a double standard. Tell us how "inalienable rights" applies to islamic terrorists but not Jews.
I never said that.Deflection.How does that fit into the Palestinian's inalienable rights?The 1920 San Remo Resolution
This was passed by the San Remo Supreme Council. This council was given the power of disposition by the Great Powers and was convened for the purpose of dividing what was the Ottoman Empire, i.e, redrawing the borders of the Middle East.
The relevant resolution reads as follows:
"The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust... the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory [authority that] will be responsible for putting into effect the [Balfour] declaration... in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people."
Treaties themselves have no statute of limitations, so their rights go on ad infinitum.
Therefore any borders assigned by treaty to Palestine are sovereign borders of a Jewish Nation.
in·al·ien·a·ble [in áylee ənəb'l]
adj
impossible to take away: not able to be transferred or taken away, e.g. because of being protected by law
Nobody has the authority to violate a people's inalienable rights. Not even self appointed "world leaders."
The above would seem to clash with your Pom Pom flailing for Hamas and their Islamo-fascist charter.
I understand you're embarrassed at being called out for demanding a double standard. Tell us how "inalienable rights" applies to islamic terrorists but not Jews.
Basic universal, inalienable rights.No valid treaty can violate the inalienable rights of a people.
And the "inalienable rights of a people" are defined, where, exactly, in law?
Link?
These can be found in various UN documents sometimes directly applied to the Palestinians.
- The right to self determination without external interference.
- The right to independence and sovereignty.
- The right to territorial integrity.
It is not as simple as all that.
The land of Palestine was transferred to Palestine by treaty. That territory was defined by international borders.
The Palestinians became citizens of Palestine by international law, by treaty, and by domestic law. Why did the Treaty of Lausanne give citizenship to the Palestinians? Because that is the law. Why did the British give citizenship to the Palestinians? Because that is the law.
Treaties are legal instruments. They must conform to international law. No valid treaty can violate the inalienable rights of a people.
The territory was not "transferred" to anyone, at any time. There was no sovereign to transfer it to. Its not like one country ceding it in treaty and another taking it up. The territory under the Mandate for Palestine (like all the other Mandates) was under Mandate for exactly the reason that there was no sovereign to pass it to. The point of a Mandate is to govern in trust until the people are capable of self-determination and government themselves. This whole concept of "transfer of territory' is a red herring you keep throwing up as a distraction from the real issues.
What WAS part of the legal documentation of the time was the beneficiary of the territory of Palestine -- that is -- the people who were to have self-determination in that territory, the people for whom the British held the territory in trust. The legal documentation of the time (which is still in force today and can not be abrogated) tells us that it was the Jewish people. Further, the documentation tells us that the Jewish people became the beneficiaries of that territory by RIGHT due to their historical sovereignty in that territory. No other peoples are mentioned. So, the STARTING point of the whole conversation is that the territory belongs to the Jewish people, by right, by law.
Now, it IS true that all of the residents of the territory, and all the Jewish immigrants became citizens of what was then called "Palestine" (as a territorial designation -- NOT as a sovereign). Aren't some still citizens of Palestine? And some citizens of Palestine by its new sovereign name -- Israel?
The question you should be asking is why two different citizenships developed in the territory.You wouldn't have a link for that, would you?became citizens of what was then called "Palestine" (as a territorial designation -- NOT as a sovereign).
Of course not.
So then, why did Britain give Palestinian citizenship to all of the Palestinians who lived in Palestine?
"Britian" did no such thing. The convention of the time was, and is, that citizenship in a new sovereign passes automatically from the old sovereign. Thus did the citizenship pass from the Ottoman Empire to the new sovereign, Israel.
The question you should be asking is why some Arabs lost citizenship in the new sovereign State.Israel violated that provision of international law.The convention of the time was, and is, that citizenship in a new sovereign passes automatically from the old sovereign.
You keep saying that like it was true. One of the problems is with a defined territory.As a reminder, Israel declared independence in 1948 and at that time had all the necessary qualities to be considered sovereign: a government, a population, a territory and the ability to interact with other sovereigns.
You keep saying that like it was true. One of the problems is with a defined territory.As a reminder, Israel declared independence in 1948 and at that time had all the necessary qualities to be considered sovereign: a government, a population, a territory and the ability to interact with other sovereigns.
What was Israel's defined territory in 1948?
What is Israel's defined territory now?
(COMMENT)What was Israel's defined territory in 1948?
(COMMENT)What is Israel's defined territory now?
You keep saying that like it was true. One of the problems is with a defined territory.As a reminder, Israel declared independence in 1948 and at that time had all the necessary qualities to be considered sovereign: a government, a population, a territory and the ability to interact with other sovereigns.
What was Israel's defined territory in 1948?
What is Israel's defined territory now?
And you keep latching on it as though you can "prove" Israel's non-existence by your say so.
Remember that little thing about "territorial integrity" you keep squawking about? THAT is Palestine, now called Israel.
Indeed, but what legal process was used to cause that to happen?THAT is Palestine, now called Israel.
You keep saying that like it was true. One of the problems is with a defined territory.As a reminder, Israel declared independence in 1948 and at that time had all the necessary qualities to be considered sovereign: a government, a population, a territory and the ability to interact with other sovereigns.
What was Israel's defined territory in 1948?
What is Israel's defined territory now?
And you keep latching on it as though you can "prove" Israel's non-existence by your say so.
Remember that little thing about "territorial integrity" you keep squawking about? THAT is Palestine, now called Israel.Indeed, but what legal process was used to cause that to happen?THAT is Palestine, now called Israel.
All You do is call international law a 'lie',No it doesn't.How does that fit into the Palestinian's inalienable rights?No links?"The land of Palestine was transferred to Palestine by treaty. That territory was defined by international borders."
-- Yes and all of that specifically defined the sovereign boundaries of the Jewish National Home.
The Palestinians became citizens of Palestine by international law, by treaty, and by domestic law.
-- Yes, and in violation of international law, the Jewish people were precluded from exercising this right.
Why did the Treaty of Lausanne give citizenship to the Palestinians? Because that is the law. Why did the British give citizenship to the Palestinians? Because that is the law.
-- Treaty of Lausannne only ensured that former Turkish subjects would become citizens of future local states. Previous treaties that preceded Lausanne, already established Palestine as a Jewish National Home, this was the sole source of Britain's authority to issue Palestinian citizenship.
Jewish National Home is international law, and a Palestinian treaty.
"Treaties are legal instruments. They must conform to international law. No valid treaty can violate the inalienable rights of a people."
-- Treaties ARE international law.
I agree, no valid treaty can violate the inalienable rights of the Jewish Nation in any part of Palestine.
The 1920 San Remo Resolution
This was passed by the San Remo Supreme Council. This council was given the power of disposition by the Great Powers and was convened for the purpose of dividing what was the Ottoman Empire, i.e, redrawing the borders of the Middle East.
The relevant resolution reads as follows:
"The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust... the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory [authority that] will be responsible for putting into effect the [Balfour] declaration... in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people."
Treaties themselves have no statute of limitations, so their rights go on ad infinitum.
Therefore any borders assigned by treaty to Palestine are sovereign borders of a Jewish Nation.
in·al·ien·a·ble [in áylee ənəb'l]
adj
impossible to take away: not able to be transferred or taken away, e.g. because of being protected by law
Nobody has the authority to violate a people's inalienable rights. Not even self appointed "world leaders."
The San Remo Resolution assures that Palestinians can exercise their inalienable rights, and reconstitute their country as a national homeland, making it a binding obligation of international law.
The US is bound by that obligation as well.
Another lie.
You keep saying that like it was true. One of the problems is with a defined territory.As a reminder, Israel declared independence in 1948 and at that time had all the necessary qualities to be considered sovereign: a government, a population, a territory and the ability to interact with other sovereigns.
What was Israel's defined territory in 1948?
What is Israel's defined territory now?
And you keep latching on it as though you can "prove" Israel's non-existence by your say so.
Remember that little thing about "territorial integrity" you keep squawking about? THAT is Palestine, now called Israel.Indeed, but what legal process was used to cause that to happen?THAT is Palestine, now called Israel.
The recognition of the Jewish peoples basic, universal, inalienable rights to self- determination, sovereignty and territorial integrity, remember?
Followed by Israel's ability to fulfill the criteria of Statehood.
Followed by her Declaration of Independence.
Pretty standard stuff for people who aren't afflicted with the Anti-Israel mentality.
There are UN resolutions reaffirming those inalienable rights for Palestinians.The recognition of the Jewish peoples basic, universal, inalienable rights to self- determination, sovereignty and territorial integrity, remember?
