Boycott Israel

[Sixties Fan]

Chinese investors prefer mature and profitable Israeli firms, report says

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

Oh - WOW.

(COMMENT)

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

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.

(COMMENT)

On more time: read it carefully... (See Posting # 5697)

You are confusing the disposition of "nationality" with the disposition of "territory." Nowhere in the Treaty of Lausanne does it say: "sovereignty went directly to the inhabitants of the respective new states"

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.

Section II - Nationality, deals with the the people such that no one is considered stateless (ie a refugee). It does not deal with the territorial disposition or citizen authority over the sate.

It must also be understood that the territory (to which the Mandate for Palestine applied) was NOT a self-governing institution. The administration of citizenship was a responsibility of the Allied Powers through the Mandatory (Britain).

Most Respectfully,
R

Turkish territory was transferred to the new states that were created by treaty. The land was not transferred to the Mandates and they had no sovereignty over the territory. The land, in this instance, was transferred to Palestine. Palestinians have Palestinian nationality and are citizens of Palestine.

Now you are saying that the sovereignty belongs to a bunch of foreigners who have never been there.

This smells like a steaming pile of Zionist bullshit.

You’re right. No Jews existed in the Holy Land before WW11. Just keep on repeating it.

I have never said that. Why do you lie.

Oh, that's right, you are a Zionist.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

Oh - WOW.

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.

(COMMENT)

On more time: read it carefully... (See Posting # 5697)

You are confusing the disposition of "nationality" with the disposition of "territory." Nowhere in the Treaty of Lausanne does it say: "sovereignty went directly to the inhabitants of the respective new states"

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.

Section II - Nationality, deals with the the people such that no one is considered stateless (ie a refugee). It does not deal with the territorial disposition or citizen authority over the sate.

It must also be understood that the territory (to which the Mandate for Palestine applied) was NOT a self-governing institution. The administration of citizenship was a responsibility of the Allied Powers through the Mandatory (Britain).

Most Respectfully,
R

Turkish territory was transferred to the new states that were created by treaty. The land was not transferred to the Mandates and they had no sovereignty over the territory. The land, in this instance, was transferred to Palestine. Palestinians have Palestinian nationality and are citizens of Palestine.

Now you are saying that the sovereignty belongs to a bunch of foreigners who have never been there.

This smells like a steaming pile of Zionist bullshit.

Palestinian nationality was a citizenship of a future Jewish National Homeland.
Sovereignty over all of Palestine was vested with the Jewish nation by an act of international law.

No Arab state of Palestine was mentioned, it's a bluff.

Pfffft.

Who says? Israel?

Curious how you insist the Treaty of Lausanne created your invented “country of Pally’land” when there is no mention of “Pal’istan” in the document.

I never said it did. Where do you get this shit?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Turkish territory was transferred to the new states that were created by treaty.

Oh give me a break. You've been corrected on this so many times its laughable you still bring this up. It underscores your fundamental lack of understanding of law. Treaties do not create States. Treaties are agreements between States.

The Treaty of Lausanne in no way created a State in Palestine. Its utterly ridiculous to claim, in law, that the Allied Powers and Turkey could create a State for a different peoples outside their own territory. That would be the polar opposite of self-determination and self-governing. It would be like Canada and the US getting together and creating a State in oh I don't know, Patagonia or something.

The land was not transferred to the Mandates and they had no sovereignty over the territory.

Squirrel. Absolutely NO ONE is arguing for this.

The land, in this instance, was transferred to Palestine. Palestinians have Palestinian nationality and are citizens of Palestine.

No, the land was abandoned (ceded) by Turkey and given over to the Mandates to administer until the Arab peoples and the Jewish peoples in the geographical territory known as Palestine could develop their own self-governing institutions. Which they did. Hence the two STATES in the territory: Jordan and Israel. There is absolutely no way to argue FOR the right of Jordan to exist while arguing AGAINST the right of Israel to exist which is consistent. For example, IF a State of Palestine was created in the geographical territory called Palestine, and you claim that only "Palestinians" have sovereignty or have the rights to sovereignty on that land, then NEITHER Jordan nor Israel exist. Are you arguing that Jordan does not exist?

Now you are saying that the sovereignty belongs to a bunch of foreigners who have never been there.

No, we are not. Sovereignty belongs to the collective Jewish people to reconstitute their homeland in recognition of their pre-existing right to that homeland. It belongs to the Jewish people as a right of return. (And if you standard for determining right of return is "have never been there", we've just solved the Arab Palestinian "right of return" since most of them have never been there. Call off the "Great March" asap, would you?)

The Treaty of Lausanne in no way created a State in Palestine. Its utterly ridiculous to claim, in law, that the Allied Powers and Turkey could create a State for a different peoples outside their own territory.

WTF?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Turkish territory was transferred to the new states that were created by treaty.

Oh give me a break. You've been corrected on this so many times its laughable you still bring this up. It underscores your fundamental lack of understanding of law. Treaties do not create States. Treaties are agreements between States.

The Treaty of Lausanne in no way created a State in Palestine. Its utterly ridiculous to claim, in law, that the Allied Powers and Turkey could create a State for a different peoples outside their own territory. That would be the polar opposite of self-determination and self-governing. It would be like Canada and the US getting together and creating a State in oh I don't know, Patagonia or something.

The land was not transferred to the Mandates and they had no sovereignty over the territory.

Squirrel. Absolutely NO ONE is arguing for this.

The land, in this instance, was transferred to Palestine. Palestinians have Palestinian nationality and are citizens of Palestine.

No, the land was abandoned (ceded) by Turkey and given over to the Mandates to administer until the Arab peoples and the Jewish peoples in the geographical territory known as Palestine could develop their own self-governing institutions. Which they did. Hence the two STATES in the territory: Jordan and Israel. There is absolutely no way to argue FOR the right of Jordan to exist while arguing AGAINST the right of Israel to exist which is consistent. For example, IF a State of Palestine was created in the geographical territory called Palestine, and you claim that only "Palestinians" have sovereignty or have the rights to sovereignty on that land, then NEITHER Jordan nor Israel exist. Are you arguing that Jordan does not exist?

Now you are saying that the sovereignty belongs to a bunch of foreigners who have never been there.

No, we are not. Sovereignty belongs to the collective Jewish people to reconstitute their homeland in recognition of their pre-existing right to that homeland. It belongs to the Jewish people as a right of return. (And if you standard for determining right of return is "have never been there", we've just solved the Arab Palestinian "right of return" since most of them have never been there. Call off the "Great March" asap, would you?)

No, the land was abandoned (ceded) by Turkey and given over to the Mandates to administer until the Arab peoples and the Jewish peoples in the geographical territory known as Palestine could develop their own self-governing institutions.

The Treaty of Lausanne said that? Where?

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Treaty of Lausanne did NOT create any new states anywhere between the Mediterranean to the Persian frontier. Turks relinquished the territorial title.

OK, we agree. Why did you bring this up?

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

The Treaty of Lausanne did NOT create any new states anywhere between the Mediterranean to the Persian frontier. Turks relinquished the territorial title.

Turkish territory was transferred to the new states that were created by treaty.

(COMMENT)

What states were created?

The land was not transferred to the Mandates and they had no sovereignty over the territory.

(COMMENT)

I did not say that the Allied Powers assumed sovereignty. But the Allied Powers assumed all the authority I mentioned in Post #5721.

The land, in this instance, was transferred to Palestine. Palestinians have Palestinian nationality and are citizens of Palestine.

(COMMENT)

• IMPOSSIBLE •
The name "Palestine" is not even mentioned in the Treaty. The Palestinians are not mentioned as a people.

Now you are saying that the sovereignty belongs to a bunch of foreigners who have never been there.

(COMMENT)

Now you are just attempting to confuse the issue. I am beginning doubt that you know the difference between sovereignty and all the authorities listed in Post #5721.

Most Respectfully,
R

P F Tinmore said: ↑
Turkish territory was transferred to the new states that were created by treaty.
(COMMENT)

What states were created?

Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Transjordan, and Palestine.

 

[Shusha]

Oh dear. Tinmore is so confused. First he says that treaties created new states, then he agrees they didn't.

 

[P F Tinmore]

• IMPOSSIBLE •
The name "Palestine" is not even mentioned in the Treaty. The Palestinians are not mentioned as a people.

Neither was Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Transjordan.

What is your point?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Oh dear. Tinmore is so confused. First he says that treaties created new states, then he agrees they didn't.

You are soooooo confused.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Now you are just attempting to confuse the issue. I am beginning doubt that you know the difference between sovereignty and all the authorities listed in Post #5721.

Sure, I know the difference between sovereignty and occupation.

 

[rylah]

Now you are just attempting to confuse the issue. I am beginning doubt that you know the difference between sovereignty and all the authorities listed in Post #5721.

Sure, I know the difference between sovereignty and occupation.

Isn't occupation a prerequisite for sovereignty?

 

[rylah]

Is there a way to govern Your country without occupying it?

 

[rylah]

Is there a way to prove that the Jewish nation is not THE sovereign national of Palestine by law and effect?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Is there a way to prove that the Jewish nation is not THE sovereign national of Palestine by law and effect?

Can't prove a negative. Can you prove that it is?

 

[rylah]

Is there a way to prove that the Jewish nation is not THE sovereign national of Palestine by law and effect?

Can't prove a negative. Can you prove that it is?

The Jewish nation was specifically mentioned regarding the establishment of Palestine as an independent entity. As well as in effect it is the Jewish nation that practices full sovereignty between the river and the sea.

Was there any mention of Arab sovereignty over Palestine?

 

[USAF 2023]

Is there a way to prove that the Jewish nation is not THE sovereign national of Palestine by law and effect?

Can't prove a negative. Can you prove that it is?

The Jewish nation was specifically mentioned regarding the establishment of Palestine as an independent entity. As well as in effect it is the Jewish nation that practices full sovereignty between the river and the sea.

Was there any mention of Arab sovereignty over Palestine?

He chooses to forget that May 14 1948 ever existed

 

[Hollie]

Now you are just attempting to confuse the issue. I am beginning doubt that you know the difference between sovereignty and all the authorities listed in Post #5721.

Sure, I know the difference between sovereignty and occupation.

Obviously, you dont.

 

[rylah]

Is there a way to prove that the Jewish nation is not THE sovereign national of Palestine by law and effect?

Can't prove a negative. Can you prove that it is?

The Jewish nation was specifically mentioned regarding the establishment of Palestine as an independent entity. As well as in effect it is the Jewish nation that practices full sovereignty between the river and the sea.

Was there any mention of Arab sovereignty over Palestine?

He chooses to forget that May 14 1948 ever existed

The Achilles ankle of the Palestinian agenda is i their time frame and selective choice of events during a short period of the conflict. Smallest mention of what happened a day prior to their main story destroys the whole alibi.

 

[Mindful]

Is there a way to prove that the Jewish nation is not THE sovereign national of Palestine by law and effect?

Can't prove a negative. Can you prove that it is?

The Jewish nation was specifically mentioned regarding the establishment of Palestine as an independent entity. As well as in effect it is the Jewish nation that practices full sovereignty between the river and the sea.

Was there any mention of Arab sovereignty over Palestine?

Has he answered this one yet?