Israel's Legal Right To Exist

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is another attempt at the slight of hand.

Back on topic.

Israel's existence is defacto not dejure.

It has political recognition but no legal status.

(COMMENT)

When we speak of a de jure governments, we mean to imply that it was legally legally established, and so recognized by other states; as in UN General Assembly Resolution 273 (III), Israel.

Article 4: Convention on Rights and Duties of States
States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.
​

It so happens that a country can be, simultaneously, a de facto government. That is to say that when we speak of the existence of a government that not officially sanctioned, but none-the-less (for all practical purposes) and true to fact --- the reigns of power are held by another influence. See: Legal English: “De Facto/De Jure”

In the case of Israel, it is both unambiguous and clear. The State is parliamentary democracy with a Basic Laws as may be amended by the Knesset; the representative body of government. There is no invisible hand and no dictatorial power (de facto).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

When we speak of a de jure governments, we mean to imply that it was legally legally established, and so recognized by other states; as in UN General Assembly Resolution 273 (III), Israel.

That is what I said. Political recognition.

 

[P F Tinmore]

See: Legal English: “De Facto/De Jure”

Thank you. That is what I mean.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Convention on Rights and Duties of States

I agree with this.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, then we agree.

When we speak of a de jure governments, we mean to imply that it was legally legally established, and so recognized by other states; as in UN General Assembly Resolution 273 (III), Israel.

That is what I said. Political recognition.

See: Legal English: “De Facto/De Jure”

Thank you. That is what I mean.

(COMMENT)

Israel was both legally establish and has legal recognition. See Posting #2321.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, then we agree.

When we speak of a de jure governments, we mean to imply that it was legally legally established, and so recognized by other states; as in UN General Assembly Resolution 273 (III), Israel.

That is what I said. Political recognition.

See: Legal English: “De Facto/De Jure”

Thank you. That is what I mean.

(COMMENT)

Israel was both legally establish and has legal recognition. See Posting #2321.

Most Respectfully,
R

Not so. What you say, or think, does not match your links.

 

[Shusha]

Back on topic.

Israel's existence is defacto not dejure.

It has political recognition but no legal status.

Well then. Support your claim with reasoned arguments.

What gives States de jure "legal status"?

 

[Shusha]

Also provide reasoned argument as to what you believe is the legal status of the territory in question.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Back on topic.

Israel's existence is defacto not dejure.

It has political recognition but no legal status.

Well then. Support your claim with reasoned arguments.

What gives States de jure "legal status"?

OK, let's start with the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States

ARTICLE 1

The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population; b ) a defined territory; c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.​

Palestine had a permanent population. By International law, (the rule of state succession) the treaty of Lausanne, and the Palestinan citizenship order of 1925. Palestinian is their nationality and they are citizens of Palestine. These are the People who have the right to self determination without external interference as stated in subsequent UN resolutions.

The Zionist settlers, claiming to be immigrants, never had any intention of being Palestinian. They lived separate from anything Palestinian. The Zionists imported these settlers to replace the legal population and create their own state. This is a violation of the Palestinian's rights and violates the territorial integrity of Palestine.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore,

You are just stubborn.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, then we agree.

When we speak of a de jure governments, we mean to imply that it was legally legally established, and so recognized by other states; as in UN General Assembly Resolution 273 (III), Israel.

That is what I said. Political recognition.

See: Legal English: “De Facto/De Jure”

Thank you. That is what I mean.

(COMMENT)

Israel was both legally establish and has legal recognition. See Posting #2321.

Most Respectfully,
R

Not so. What you say, or think, does not match your links.

(QUESTION)

What, in particular, are you pointing out ???

v/r
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

A couple important points just to start with:

• Palestine was defined by the Allied Powers; the territory to which the Mandate applied.
• Palestine was part of the territory for which the Allied Powers had Title and Rights.
• The citizenship issue was the customary law of the Allied Powers and made applicable by the Allied Powers.
• The Government of Palestine was, in fact, the "Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine."
• To be a citizen of Palestine, is to be a citizen of the Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine.
  

Back on topic.

Israel's existence is defacto not dejure.

It has political recognition but no legal status.

Well then. Support your claim with reasoned arguments.

What gives States de jure "legal status"?

OK, let's start with the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States

ARTICLE 1

The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population; b ) a defined territory; c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.​

Palestine had a permanent population. By International law, (the rule of state succession) the treaty of Lausanne, and the Palestinan citizenship order of 1925. Palestinian is their nationality and they are citizens of Palestine. These are the People who have the right to self determination without external interference as stated in subsequent UN resolutions.

The Zionist settlers, claiming to be immigrants, never had any intention of being Palestinian. They lived separate from anything Palestinian. The Zionists imported these settlers to replace the legal population and create their own state. This is a violation of the Palestinian's rights and violates the territorial integrity of Palestine.

(COMMENT)

You highlighted the portion pertaining to a "Permanent Population." I don't knwwhat you are driving at, but there is a "Permanent Population today; just as the was when the Provisional Government declared independence in 1948, and just as there was when the State of Israel was extended membership into the UN in 1949.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

• Palestine was defined by the Allied Powers; the territory to which the Mandate applied.

No, the League of Nations established the Mandate system pursuant to Article 22 of the Covenant.

Origin of the System of Mandates under the League of Nations on JSTOR

• Palestine was part of the territory for which the Allied Powers had Title and Rights.

No, the Allied Powers did not have title and rights, as stated above. Title and rights accrued to the inhabitants.

• The citizenship issue was the customary law of the Allied Powers and made applicable by the Allied Powers.

No, citizenship was was to be administered by the Mandatory subject to approval of the League of Nations.

• The Government of Palestine was, in fact, the "Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine."

No, the wishes of the inhabitants were the principle consideration in the selection of the Mandatory, pursuant to Article 22 of the Covenant, to wit:

"The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory."

• To be a citizen of Palestine, is to be a citizen of the Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine.

No, the inhabitants selected the Mandatory and the League confirmed the selection.

It's amazing how wrong you are on almost everything you write. Either your racist hate of the Muslims and Christians of Palestine and extreme partisanship makes it impossible for you to think clearly, or your are just not very clever.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Back on topic.

Israel's existence is defacto not dejure.

It has political recognition but no legal status.

Well then. Support your claim with reasoned arguments.

What gives States de jure "legal status"?

OK, let's start with the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States

ARTICLE 1​

​

The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population; b ) a defined territory; c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.​

Palestine is a state (according to the League of Nations and other legal bodies) per post war international treaties. It has international borders defined by post war treaties.

Israel, on the other hand, has never had any defined territory. There has never been any treaty or agreement for Israel to legally acquire any territory. Israel sits inside Palestine's international borders by military force.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

It is the reality of the moment that the nation of "Israel" physically exists. Israel exists in the legal sense; and it exists in a political sense. Nothing, pertaining to the time before 14 May 1948 (Independence from League of Nations mandate under British administration) makes any difference. No matter HOW YOU choose to interpret it, the fact and the reality does not change. And the challenges you make to the interpretation of historical events (while interesting) does not change the fact that Israel maintains its sovereignty.

Nothing you say today changes the physical reality. There have been three wars and two intifada fought over the issue; not to mention the attempted insurrection by Fedayeen Extremist against the Hashemite Kingdom. Each time the Arab Palestinians engage in combat, they lose a little something. You would think that they would like to secure as Peace, as the Jordanians did, and the Egyptians did. The concept of securing defensible borders was just as important then (See Joints Chiefs of Staff Memorandum 373-67); if not more so today --- since the Arab Palestinian have expanded the reach of their Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence. The JSC Memorandum was written in the light prior to the 1972 Summer Olympics at Munich when Palestinian terrorists storms the Olympic Village.

It is time for the Arab Palestinians to start building a future; instead of lining the pockets of corrupt leaders.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

It is the reality of the moment that the nation of "Israel" physically exists.

Indeed, de facto not de jure. Nothing legal can be derived from illegal behavior.

So all of that stuff you spew is irrelevant.

 

[Shusha]

OK, let's start with the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States

ARTICLE 1

The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population; b ) a defined territory; c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.​

​

Palestine had a permanent population.

If Palestine had a permanent population, then it had a permanent population. If you argue that a permanent population is one of the pre-conditions of Statehood, and then argue that the territory in question (Palestine) had a permanent population, you have just obliterated your own argument that a State arising from that territory has not met the pre-condition of having a permanent population.

Israel sits inside Palestine's international border ...

If Palestine has international borders (a defined territory), then it had international borders. If you argue that a defined territory is one of the pre-conditions of Statehood, and then argue that the territory in question (Palestine) had a defined territory (international borders), you have just obliterated your own argument that a State arising from that territory has not met the pre-condition of having a defined territory.

Here, you are, in fact, arguing that Palestine (re-named Israel) met all of the pre-conditions for Statehood.

 

[RoccoR]

monty,

You take one man's perspective and then try to re-interpret the actual events.

San Remo Conference decided on April 24, 1920 to assign the Mandate [for Palestine] under the League of Nations to Britain.

• The terms of the mandates in respect of the above territories will be formulated by the Principal Allied Powers and submitted to the Council of the League of Nations for approval.
• Turkey hereby undertakes, in accordance with the provisions of Article [132 of the Treaty of Sevres] to accept any decisions which may be taken in this connection.​

This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."

• The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.​

First Sentence of the Mandate for Palestine (1922)

• Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine,​

The Treaty of Lausanne

Relative to Rights and Title to Allied Powers

• ARTICLE I6.

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 recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

SECTION VII.
SYRIA, MESOPOTAMIA, PALESTINE.
ARTICLE 94. Treaty of Sevres

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

The determination of the other frontiers of the said States, and the selection of the Mandatories, will be made by the Principal Allied Powers.

ARTICLE 95.

The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

ARTICLE 97.

Turkey hereby undertakes, in accordance with the provisions of Article 132, to accept any decisions which may be taken in relation to the questions dealt with in this Section.

ARTICLE 132.

Outside her frontiers as fixed by the present Treaty Turkey hereby renounces in favour of the Principal Allied Powers all rights and title which she could claim on any ground over or concerning any territories outside Europe which are not otherwise disposed of by the present Treaty.

Turkey undertakes to recognise and conform to the measures which may be taken now or in the future by the Principal Allied Powers, in agreement where necessary with third Powers, in order to carry the above stipulation into effect.​

• ARTICLE 30.

Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.​

While the Mudros Agreement: Armistice with Turkey (October 30, 1918) amounted to an Unconditional Surrender, the Armistice was replaced by the Treaty of Sevres.

WRITTEN BY: The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica
LAST UPDATED: 7-20-1998 See Article History

Armistice of Mudros, (Oct. 30, 1918), pact signed at the port of Mudros, on the Aegean island of Lemnos, between the Ottoman Empire and Great Britain (representing the Allied powers) marking the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I (1914–18).

The Palestine Police during the British Mandate

Palestine 1947 Side-affects and paradoxes were the main forces shaping Britain's administration of Palestine.

The initial phase between 1917 and 1920, the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) was an incidental side affect of World War 1 middle-eastern military campaigns.

The Palestine Police was born when civil administration replaced military administration in 1920 but for much of its history, the British section of the Palestine police received army training.​

Under the terms of the armistice, the Ottomans surrendered their remaining garrisons in Hejaz, Yemen, Syria, Mesopotamia, Tripolitania, and Cyrenaica; the Allies were to occupy the Straits of the Dardanelles and the Bosporus, Batum (now in southwest Georgia), and the Taurus tunnel system; and the Allies won the right to occupy “in case of disorder” the six Armenian provinces in Anatolia and to seize “any strategic points” in case of a threat to Allied security. The Ottoman army was demobilized, and Turkish ports, railways, and other strategic points were made available for use by the Allies.​

All the above are quoted excerpts from the various sources provided by the links. They are not quoted in their entirety do to their size. Only the salient points are provided; answering the specific questions.

(∑)

There was a primary and specific intent that dates back to a time before the Mandate. That intent, expressed over and over again, was the: "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people." The difference here is that, the intent is relative to the Jewish people. There is no equivalent to this prior to the 1988 acknowledgement of the Palestinians Declaration of Independence.

By virtue of the natural, historical and legal right of the Palestinian Arab people to its homeland, Palestine, and of the sacrifices of its succeeding generations in defence of the freedom and independence of that homeland,

Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947, and

Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:

The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.

• Decides to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations, without prejudice to the acquired rights, privileges and role of the Palestine Liberation Organization
• Application for Admission by the State of Palestine (23 September 2011)
• Acknowledges the proclamation of the State of Palestine (15 December 1988)
• Palestinian National Council Declaration of Independence (November 14, 1988)
​

The Arab Palestinians are always attempting to grab more, or to imply more than is theirs or there to be had. In this case, It is what it is. There is a clear chain for you to follow pertaining to the Jewish People and the establishment of Israel. They are links in the chain that specifically state: "Jewish National Home" and the "State of Israel." There is no interpretation required. That is because the Jewish People at that time were the principle interests. Similarly, when it spoke about Jordan, it clearly stated in an unambiguous form, Jordan. But there is no unambiguous form specifically addressing the Arabs of Palestine in terms of sovereignty or establishment beyond those that were rejected by the Arab Palestinians. To reject political offers that inadvertently undermines the Arab Palestinian self interests is their trademark; there exclusive brand. They need not cry about it now.

Most Respectfully,
R​

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore,

Again!!!

It is the reality of the moment that the nation of "Israel" physically exists.

Indeed, de facto not de jure. Nothing legal can be derived from illegal behavior.

So all of that stuff you spew is irrelevant.

What "illegal behavior" specifically. Where and when.?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

It is also necessary to point out that the Montevideo Convention "rules" are guidelines and not hard-and-fast, black-and-white. There is a measure of "does it have enough" rather than "does it meet each standard in exacting detail".

For example, The Vatican is considered a State and acts as one, even though it has no permanent population (the population is celibate males and thus not self-sustaining -- all citizens are 'immigrants').

There are numerous other examples of States or non-States with various shades of meeting Montevideo guidelines or being shy of them. I would suggest the 4th criteria (having the capacity of entering into agreements with other States) to be the defining guideline. The 4th criteria depends on having at least some State recognize a State enough to enter into agreements with it, and thus depends on some form of recognition.

For example, is Taiwan a State or not a State (de jure)? It is easy enough to argue it easily meets all the Montevideo criteria.

 

[P F Tinmore]

monty,

You take one man's perspective and then try to re-interpret the actual events.

San Remo Conference decided on April 24, 1920 to assign the Mandate [for Palestine] under the League of Nations to Britain.

• The terms of the mandates in respect of the above territories will be formulated by the Principal Allied Powers and submitted to the Council of the League of Nations for approval.
• Turkey hereby undertakes, in accordance with the provisions of Article [132 of the Treaty of Sevres] to accept any decisions which may be taken in this connection.​

This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."

• The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.​

First Sentence of the Mandate for Palestine (1922)

• Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine,​

The Treaty of Lausanne

Relative to Rights and Title to Allied Powers

• ARTICLE I6.

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 recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

SECTION VII.
SYRIA, MESOPOTAMIA, PALESTINE.
ARTICLE 94. Treaty of Sevres

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

The determination of the other frontiers of the said States, and the selection of the Mandatories, will be made by the Principal Allied Powers.

ARTICLE 95.

The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

ARTICLE 97.

Turkey hereby undertakes, in accordance with the provisions of Article 132, to accept any decisions which may be taken in relation to the questions dealt with in this Section.

ARTICLE 132.

Outside her frontiers as fixed by the present Treaty Turkey hereby renounces in favour of the Principal Allied Powers all rights and title which she could claim on any ground over or concerning any territories outside Europe which are not otherwise disposed of by the present Treaty.

Turkey undertakes to recognise and conform to the measures which may be taken now or in the future by the Principal Allied Powers, in agreement where necessary with third Powers, in order to carry the above stipulation into effect.​

• ARTICLE 30.

Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.​

While the Mudros Agreement: Armistice with Turkey (October 30, 1918) amounted to an Unconditional Surrender, the Armistice was replaced by the Treaty of Sevres.

WRITTEN BY: The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica
LAST UPDATED: 7-20-1998 See Article History

Armistice of Mudros, (Oct. 30, 1918), pact signed at the port of Mudros, on the Aegean island of Lemnos, between the Ottoman Empire and Great Britain (representing the Allied powers) marking the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I (1914–18).

The Palestine Police during the British Mandate

Palestine 1947 Side-affects and paradoxes were the main forces shaping Britain's administration of Palestine.

The initial phase between 1917 and 1920, the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) was an incidental side affect of World War 1 middle-eastern military campaigns.

The Palestine Police was born when civil administration replaced military administration in 1920 but for much of its history, the British section of the Palestine police received army training.​

Under the terms of the armistice, the Ottomans surrendered their remaining garrisons in Hejaz, Yemen, Syria, Mesopotamia, Tripolitania, and Cyrenaica; the Allies were to occupy the Straits of the Dardanelles and the Bosporus, Batum (now in southwest Georgia), and the Taurus tunnel system; and the Allies won the right to occupy “in case of disorder” the six Armenian provinces in Anatolia and to seize “any strategic points” in case of a threat to Allied security. The Ottoman army was demobilized, and Turkish ports, railways, and other strategic points were made available for use by the Allies.​

All the above are quoted excerpts from the various sources provided by the links. They are not quoted in their entirety do to their size. Only the salient points are provided; answering the specific questions.

(∑)

There was a primary and specific intent that dates back to a time before the Mandate. That intent, expressed over and over again, was the: "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people." The difference here is that, the intent is relative to the Jewish people. There is no equivalent to this prior to the 1988 acknowledgement of the Palestinians Declaration of Independence.

By virtue of the natural, historical and legal right of the Palestinian Arab people to its homeland, Palestine, and of the sacrifices of its succeeding generations in defence of the freedom and independence of that homeland,

Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947, and

Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:

The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.

• Decides to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations, without prejudice to the acquired rights, privileges and role of the Palestine Liberation Organization
• Application for Admission by the State of Palestine (23 September 2011)
• Acknowledges the proclamation of the State of Palestine (15 December 1988)
• Palestinian National Council Declaration of Independence (November 14, 1988)
​

The Arab Palestinians are always attempting to grab more, or to imply more than is theirs or there to be had. In this case, It is what it is. There is a clear chain for you to follow pertaining to the Jewish People and the establishment of Israel. They are links in the chain that specifically state: "Jewish National Home" and the "State of Israel." There is no interpretation required. That is because the Jewish People at that time were the principle interests. Similarly, when it spoke about Jordan, it clearly stated in an unambiguous form, Jordan. But there is no unambiguous form specifically addressing the Arabs of Palestine in terms of sovereignty or establishment beyond those that were rejected by the Arab Palestinians. To reject political offers that inadvertently undermines the Arab Palestinian self interests is their trademark; there exclusive brand. They need not cry about it now.

Most Respectfully,
R​

So how does all that refute my post?