Boycott Israel

[Sixties Fan]

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Boycott Israel
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/pdf/eng/armistice_turk_eng.pdf

Well, I'm so glad you asked.

And where were they going to put this Jewish National Home?

(COMMENT)

When the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic surrendered, the treaty stipulated:

ARTICLE 16.

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognized by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighborly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.

It would appear that the Allied Powers intended for the Jewish National Home to be placed in the territory to which the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic surrended to them.

ARTICLE 3.
From the Mediterranean to the frontier of Persia, the frontier of Turkey is laid down as follows:

(I ) With Syria:
The frontier described in Article 8 of the Franco-Turkish Agreement of the 20th October, 1921​

The Allied Powers intended to place the Jewish National Home somewhere on this territory. The territory, at the time, was more accurately known as the Article 16 territory of the "Mudros Agreement: The Armistice Convention with Turkey (October 30, 1918);" under the control of The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) (1918-20) of the Allied Powers. Then immediately after the San Remos Conference of 1920, the territory transitioned when on 1 July 1920, a Civil Administration was established; and then later → by order of "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922." → the territories would b described under the League of Nations Mandate, the territory to which the Mandate for Palestine applied, or just (hereinafter) "Palestine."

Now I have the feeling that you are going to come back with one of your snappy little replies about: "All that just to say "Palestine."

Well, yeah!

My intent is to leave "No Doubt" that the entirety of the territory, or any part thereof, was not under Arab Sovereignty or any kind of control. That the national lines of demarkations where entirely in the hands of the Allied Powers (primarily the British Government).

Most Respectfully,
R

Britain never had any sovereignty over that territory.

They conquered it from the Ottoman Empire.
To the Winner goes the spoils.
Always has been that way, and it will stay that way.

Arabs never had sovereignty over the land. But you want the land to be theirs, no matter what, as long as it is in Muslim hands. Never of Jews.

If Jews did to Muslims and Christians even half of what it has been done to them, Israel would be the whole Mandate promised to them, and not just what it is now, 20 % of the original ancient territory.

Let me hear you cry over Muslim lost wars again

Whatever. Britain had no sovereignty over that territory. They could give it to nobody. It wasn't theirs to give.

 

[Sixties Fan]

RE: Boycott Israel
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/pdf/eng/armistice_turk_eng.pdf

Well, I'm so glad you asked.

And where were they going to put this Jewish National Home?

(COMMENT)

When the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic surrendered, the treaty stipulated:

ARTICLE 16.

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognized by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighborly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.

It would appear that the Allied Powers intended for the Jewish National Home to be placed in the territory to which the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic surrended to them.

ARTICLE 3.
From the Mediterranean to the frontier of Persia, the frontier of Turkey is laid down as follows:

(I ) With Syria:
The frontier described in Article 8 of the Franco-Turkish Agreement of the 20th October, 1921​

The Allied Powers intended to place the Jewish National Home somewhere on this territory. The territory, at the time, was more accurately known as the Article 16 territory of the "Mudros Agreement: The Armistice Convention with Turkey (October 30, 1918);" under the control of The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) (1918-20) of the Allied Powers. Then immediately after the San Remos Conference of 1920, the territory transitioned when on 1 July 1920, a Civil Administration was established; and then later → by order of "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922." → the territories would b described under the League of Nations Mandate, the territory to which the Mandate for Palestine applied, or just (hereinafter) "Palestine."

Now I have the feeling that you are going to come back with one of your snappy little replies about: "All that just to say "Palestine."

Well, yeah!

My intent is to leave "No Doubt" that the entirety of the territory, or any part thereof, was not under Arab Sovereignty or any kind of control. That the national lines of demarkations where entirely in the hands of the Allied Powers (primarily the British Government).

Most Respectfully,
R

Britain never had any sovereignty over that territory.

They conquered it from the Ottoman Empire.
To the Winner goes the spoils.
Always has been that way, and it will stay that way.

Arabs never had sovereignty over the land. But you want the land to be theirs, no matter what, as long as it is in Muslim hands. Never of Jews.

If Jews did to Muslims and Christians even half of what it has been done to them, Israel would be the whole Mandate promised to them, and not just what it is now, 20 % of the original ancient territory.

Let me hear you cry over Muslim lost wars again

Whatever. Britain had no sovereignty over that territory. They could give it to nobody. It wasn't theirs to give.

This is the way the world runs:

There is a war.

The winners take it all.

The losers lose it all.

The British and the French won all the Ottoman conquered territory to do with whatever they wanted. And so they did.

They divided all of that territory into Four Mandates.

The only Mandate you have a problem with, is the one which did not end up in the hands of other Muslims, not the Turks, or the Iranians, or the Arabs.

To the Muslims.....ALL

To Jews and Christians.....Nothing.


The world does not work that way, not since WWI.

Someday you will learn to accept it

 

[Sixties Fan]

Justin Trudeau's full apology for Canadian government turning away MS St Louis refugees

 

[P F Tinmore]

The first UK university to divest from Israeli apartheid is Leeds

Leeds has become the first UK university to divest from firms involved in the Israeli arms trade, after a boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign by Palestine solidarity activists.

A spokesperson revealed to the Leeds student newspaper The Gryphon on Friday that the university has “divested of our holdings in Airbus, United Technologies and Keyence Corporation.”

The holdings had been worth more than $1.2 million.

All three corporations trade military equipment with Israel.

The first UK university to divest from Israeli apartheid is Leeds

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Boycott Israel
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/pdf/eng/armistice_turk_eng.pdf

Well, I'm so glad you asked.

And where were they going to put this Jewish National Home?

(COMMENT)

When the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic surrendered, the treaty stipulated:

ARTICLE 16.

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognized by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighborly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.

It would appear that the Allied Powers intended for the Jewish National Home to be placed in the territory to which the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic surrended to them.

ARTICLE 3.
From the Mediterranean to the frontier of Persia, the frontier of Turkey is laid down as follows:

(I ) With Syria:
The frontier described in Article 8 of the Franco-Turkish Agreement of the 20th October, 1921​

The Allied Powers intended to place the Jewish National Home somewhere on this territory. The territory, at the time, was more accurately known as the Article 16 territory of the "Mudros Agreement: The Armistice Convention with Turkey (October 30, 1918);" under the control of The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) (1918-20) of the Allied Powers. Then immediately after the San Remos Conference of 1920, the territory transitioned when on 1 July 1920, a Civil Administration was established; and then later → by order of "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922." → the territories would b described under the League of Nations Mandate, the territory to which the Mandate for Palestine applied, or just (hereinafter) "Palestine."

Now I have the feeling that you are going to come back with one of your snappy little replies about: "All that just to say "Palestine."

Well, yeah!

My intent is to leave "No Doubt" that the entirety of the territory, or any part thereof, was not under Arab Sovereignty or any kind of control. That the national lines of demarkations where entirely in the hands of the Allied Powers (primarily the British Government).

Most Respectfully,
R

Britain never had any sovereignty over that territory.

They conquered it from the Ottoman Empire.
To the Winner goes the spoils.
Always has been that way, and it will stay that way.

Arabs never had sovereignty over the land. But you want the land to be theirs, no matter what, as long as it is in Muslim hands. Never of Jews.

If Jews did to Muslims and Christians even half of what it has been done to them, Israel would be the whole Mandate promised to them, and not just what it is now, 20 % of the original ancient territory.

Let me hear you cry over Muslim lost wars again

Whatever. Britain had no sovereignty over that territory. They could give it to nobody. It wasn't theirs to give.

This is the way the world runs:

There is a war.

The winners take it all.

The losers lose it all.

The British and the French won all the Ottoman conquered territory to do with whatever they wanted. And so they did.

They divided all of that territory into Four Mandates.

The only Mandate you have a problem with, is the one which did not end up in the hands of other Muslims, not the Turks, or the Iranians, or the Arabs.

To the Muslims.....ALL

To Jews and Christians.....Nothing.


The world does not work that way, not since WWI.

Someday you will learn to accept it

It was standard policy. None of the Mandates acquired sovereignty. Look it up.

 

[Hollie]

RE: Boycott Israel
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/pdf/eng/armistice_turk_eng.pdf

Well, I'm so glad you asked.

(COMMENT)

When the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic surrendered, the treaty stipulated:

​

It would appear that the Allied Powers intended for the Jewish National Home to be placed in the territory to which the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic surrended to them.

​

The Allied Powers intended to place the Jewish National Home somewhere on this territory. The territory, at the time, was more accurately known as the Article 16 territory of the "Mudros Agreement: The Armistice Convention with Turkey (October 30, 1918);" under the control of The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) (1918-20) of the Allied Powers. Then immediately after the San Remos Conference of 1920, the territory transitioned when on 1 July 1920, a Civil Administration was established; and then later → by order of "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922." → the territories would b described under the League of Nations Mandate, the territory to which the Mandate for Palestine applied, or just (hereinafter) "Palestine."

Now I have the feeling that you are going to come back with one of your snappy little replies about: "All that just to say "Palestine."

Well, yeah!

My intent is to leave "No Doubt" that the entirety of the territory, or any part thereof, was not under Arab Sovereignty or any kind of control. That the national lines of demarkations where entirely in the hands of the Allied Powers (primarily the British Government).

Most Respectfully,
R

Britain never had any sovereignty over that territory.

They conquered it from the Ottoman Empire.
To the Winner goes the spoils.
Always has been that way, and it will stay that way.

Arabs never had sovereignty over the land. But you want the land to be theirs, no matter what, as long as it is in Muslim hands. Never of Jews.

If Jews did to Muslims and Christians even half of what it has been done to them, Israel would be the whole Mandate promised to them, and not just what it is now, 20 % of the original ancient territory.

Let me hear you cry over Muslim lost wars again

Whatever. Britain had no sovereignty over that territory. They could give it to nobody. It wasn't theirs to give.

This is the way the world runs:

There is a war.

The winners take it all.

The losers lose it all.

The British and the French won all the Ottoman conquered territory to do with whatever they wanted. And so they did.

They divided all of that territory into Four Mandates.

The only Mandate you have a problem with, is the one which did not end up in the hands of other Muslims, not the Turks, or the Iranians, or the Arabs.

To the Muslims.....ALL

To Jews and Christians.....Nothing.


The world does not work that way, not since WWI.

Someday you will learn to accept it

It was standard policy. None of the Mandates acquired sovereignty. Look it up.

Indeed, sovereignty was not a requirement for establishment of the Jewish National Home. Look that up.

Indeed, the Arab-Moslem squatters never established sovereignty over the territory conquered by the Islamist colonial settler project.

Indeed, your whining over the history that causes you such angst can’t be changed by your cut and paste YouTube videos.

 

[Shusha]

Britain never had any sovereignty over that territory.

No one is saying that they did. This is just another red herring you throw up in our faces periodically to distract from the reality of the questions asked.

 

[Shusha]

Indeed, sovereignty was not a requirement for establishment of the Jewish National Home. Look that up.

Indeed, he likes to pretend that sovereignty is a pre-condition developing a State instead of the other way around.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Indeed, sovereignty was not a requirement for establishment of the Jewish National Home. Look that up.

Indeed, he likes to pretend that sovereignty is a pre-condition developing a State instead of the other way around.

It is. If they do not have sovereignty, they have no say in the status of the territory.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Indeed, sovereignty was not a requirement for establishment of the Jewish National Home. Look that up.

Indeed, he likes to pretend that sovereignty is a pre-condition developing a State instead of the other way around.

It is. If they do not have sovereignty, they have no say in the status of the territory.

Says who ?

 

[Sixties Fan]

ACT NOW! Protest Anti-Israel Hostility in Durham, North Carolina Police Force

 

[Shusha]

It is. If they do not have sovereignty, they have no say in the status of the territory.

Lol. Exactly. I could go one way with replying to this thread and point out that the Arab Palestinians (as distinct from the Jewish Palestinians) have no sovereignty, and thus no say. But...

The larger point is that the right to sovereignty (self-determination), is not the same as sovereignty.

 

[P F Tinmore]

It is. If they do not have sovereignty, they have no say in the status of the territory.

Lol. Exactly. I could go one way with replying to this thread and point out that the Arab Palestinians (as distinct from the Jewish Palestinians) have no sovereignty, and thus no say. But...

The larger point is that the right to sovereignty (self-determination), is not the same as sovereignty.

Links?

 

[P F Tinmore]

ACT NOW! Protest Anti-Israel Hostility in Durham, North Carolina Police Force

 

[Shusha]

It is. If they do not have sovereignty, they have no say in the status of the territory.

Lol. Exactly. I could go one way with replying to this thread and point out that the Arab Palestinians (as distinct from the Jewish Palestinians) have no sovereignty, and thus no say. But...

The larger point is that the right to sovereignty (self-determination), is not the same as sovereignty.

Links?

Lol. Are you trying to argue that the Arab Palestinians HAVE sovereignty already? As opposed to the right to sovereignty?

 

[P F Tinmore]

It is. If they do not have sovereignty, they have no say in the status of the territory.

Lol. Exactly. I could go one way with replying to this thread and point out that the Arab Palestinians (as distinct from the Jewish Palestinians) have no sovereignty, and thus no say. But...

The larger point is that the right to sovereignty (self-determination), is not the same as sovereignty.

Links?

Lol. Are you trying to argue that the Arab Palestinians HAVE sovereignty already? As opposed to the right to sovereignty?

No link, huh?

 

[Hollie]

Indeed, sovereignty was not a requirement for establishment of the Jewish National Home. Look that up.

Indeed, he likes to pretend that sovereignty is a pre-condition developing a State instead of the other way around.

It is. If they do not have sovereignty, they have no say in the status of the territory.

Another of the silly notions you peddle.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Boycott Israel
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

To coin one of your comebacks: This statement, while true, does not "refute" any facts as stated.

Britain never had any sovereignty over that territory.

(COMMENT)

True! Having said that does not change the fact that the Allied Powers had "all rights and title whatsoever over the territories (not the inhabitants). - AND - The Allied Powers had "the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned."

Whatever. Britain had no sovereignty over that territory. They could give it to nobody. It wasn't theirs to give.

(COMMENT)

Britain did not extend sovereignty; that is true. But the "future" was in the hands of the Allied Powers.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Boycott Israel
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

To coin one of your comebacks: This statement, while true, does not "refute" any facts as stated.

Britain never had any sovereignty over that territory.

(COMMENT)

True! Having said that does not change the fact that the Allied Powers had "all rights and title whatsoever over the territories (not the inhabitants). - AND - The Allied Powers had "the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned."

Whatever. Britain had no sovereignty over that territory. They could give it to nobody. It wasn't theirs to give.

(COMMENT)

Britain did not extend sovereignty; that is true. But the "future" was in the hands of the Allied Powers.


Most Respectfully,
R

Not so. The Turkish Empire had rights and title (sovereignty) until the Treaty of Lausanne then sovereignty went directly to the inhabitants of the respective new states. Nobody else had any sovereignty.