Shusha
Gold Member
- Dec 14, 2015
- 13,579
- 2,453
- 290
But where is the treaty changing sovereignty?None of those are land/border treaties.Your usual duck.Don’t be disingenuous. You know exactly which treaties I’m talking about. The fact that you continue to ignore them doesn’t make them cease to exist.
I’ve posted them dozens of times. Each time you fail to address them and disappear only to start up this foolishness the next time they are brought up.
I predict you will do so again.
San Remo
Treaty of Lausanne
The Mandate for Palestine
Israel’s Declaration of Independence
UNGA 273
Well, in point of fact, some of them are. But, so what? Why are we looking for border treaties?
Why are you arguing with me on a point we agree on? Typically, when a territory changes sovereignty, the previous territorial borders continue to hold true. Right? You literally, just argued this in a post on the other thread!
Well, you CAN'T POSSIBLY be arguing that the territory is still Turkish. So the question is what "changing sovereignty"?
Treaty of Lausanne releases the territory from Turkish sovereignty.
Treaty of Lausanne provides for the Allied Forces to determine the future of the territory.
The Allied Forces opt not to apply their own sovereignty to the territory.
This makes the territory terra nullius (under the sovereignty of no State).
The territory is administered in trust for the development of self-determination and eventual sovereignty and Statehood. This self-determination is specifically assigned to the Jewish people. This is expressly and clearly entrenched in law in the San Remo Agreements and in the Mandate for Palestine.
The Jewish people, under the Mandate of development of self-determination and self-governing bodies fulfills the necessary requirements for achieving a state (government, territory, population, international relations).
Israel Declares Independence, as is normative.
Israel realizes recognition via UNGA 273.
Now, I KNOW you are trying to argue that the condition of terra nullius did not exist. You are just wrong. Just plain, outrageously wrong. There is no State until there is a State.
And EVEN if you want to argue that there was a State of Palestine, formed in 1922 (ridiculous), administered by the British, that State was and could only have been the State which developed self-government and declared independence -- ISRAEL. There are no other possible options.