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.
That is not another "claim." That is history. How do you post here and know so little?
Benoliel and Perry attempt to refute my argument that the statehood asserted by the Palestine National Council in 1988 was not of a new state, but of a state that already existed. They challenge my position that Palestine, as a Class A mandate under the League of Nations, was a state already in that era. 36 But beyond a bald assertion, Benoliel and Perry cite nothing that would demonstrate that Palestine was not a state in the League era. In particular, they mention nothing of the practice of the states of that era in regard to Palestine, which is where one must look to determine if Palestine was then a state.That is not another "claim." That is history. How do you post here and know so little?
Oh for the love of all that is holy. Do you not understand debate? You present a claim. (Israel has no legal status; Palestine became a State in 1924). And then you defend that claim by providing supporting arguments. Then I challenge those arguments and offer counter-arguments.
Jeez.
(COMMENT)Benoliel and Perry attempt to refute my argument that the statehood asserted by the Palestine National Council in 1988 was not of a new state, ... The Court said that Palestine was a successor state to Turkey.
http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1045&context=mjil
(COMMENT)Palestine has been a state since 1924. Its territory is defined by international borders. Israel sits inside those borders with no territory of its own.the relevant piece of the legal pie is whether or not "Palestine" has a competing and superior claim. (And "Palestine" needs to be defined, btw).
And you argue about which one is legitimate.
I think you are grasping at straws.P F Tinmore, et al,
I think you've made a couple errors here.
(COMMENT)Benoliel and Perry attempt to refute my argument that the statehood asserted by the Palestine National Council in 1988 was not of a new state, ... The Court said that Palestine was a successor state to Turkey.
http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1045&context=mjil
EXCERPT: John Quigley Moritz College of Law, Ohio State University: The Treaty of Lausanne, to which the World War I allies were party, more than once refers to Turkey's Arab territories (Iraq, Syria, and Palestine), all of which became Class A mandates as "states" that were "detached" from Turkey.
Turkey, in the Treaty of Lausanne, renounces “all rights and title” and specifically accepted that: “the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.” Pertaining to the regional area in question, Turkey addressed the territory from the “Mediterranean to the frontier of Persia, the frontier of Turkey” as “Syria and Iraq” (found in Article 3). Nowhere, in the Treaty of Lausanne, is a place called Palestine identified. John Quigley has confused the “Iraq, Syria, and Palestine” with Section VII --- Syria, Mesopotamia, Palestine --- Articles 94-97 of the Treaty of Sevres.
EXCERPT --- John Quigley: “Had Benoliel and Perry examined that state practice, they would have seen that Palestine was accepted as a state.” That would be wrong on several levels. First, Article 22 is completely ambiguous as to what “certain communities” were “provisionally recognized.” The Covenant for the League of Nations never actually stipulated which territories were provisionally recognized and which territories were not provisionally recognized. In 1919, when the Covenant was written, the signatories and the Allied Powers had not decided the boundaries of Palestine. In fact the San Remo Convention had not convened yet.
Secondly, the territory to which the Mandate for Palestine applied, while it was the Government of Palestine, administered by Great Britain, it was a non-self-governing institution. This was made clear by the fact that it was not governed by the Arab Palestinians which declined to participate in nation build (rejected three time by 1923). It was also made clear in the LEGAL MEANING OF THE “TERMINATION OF THE MANDATE” in which it clearly states that “Palestine is today (25 February 1948) a legal entity but it is not a sovereign state. Palestine is a territory administered under mandate by His Majesty (in respect of the United Kingdom), who is entirely responsible both for its internal administration and for its foreign affairs.
02/20/1948 A/AC.21/UK/42 UN Palestine Commission - Mandate termination - Letter from United Kingdom
On the matter of the comment pertaining to the PCIJ Judgment #5, What it actually said was:
"In all territories detached from Turkey, either as a result of the Balkan Wars in 1913, or under the present Treaty, other than those referred to in Article 311, the State which definitely acquires the territory shall ipso facto succeed to the duties and charges of Turkey towards concessions and holders of contracts, referred to in the first paragraph of Article 311, and shall maintain the guarantees granted or assign equivalent ones"
Great Britain was responsible for the debt because it was the Government of Palestine.
(COMMENT)Palestine has been a state since 1924. Its territory is defined by international borders. Israel sits inside those borders with no territory of its own.the relevant piece of the legal pie is whether or not "Palestine" has a competing and superior claim. (And "Palestine" needs to be defined, btw).
And you argue about which one is legitimate.
One more time: 02/27/1948PAL/138 Future government of Palestine - UN Palestine Commission as successor Government of Palestine/UK memorandum (excerpts) - Press release... This is the companion to A/AC.21/UK/42 Attached Memorandum "A"
Nothing prior to 1988, recognizes Palestine (as defined by the Order in Council 1922) identifies the territory to which the Mandate applied, as a Self-Governing State or Institution. Your statement: "Palestine has been a state since 1924." has NO VALIDITY whatsoever. The Palestine, within the boundaries eventually established by the Allied Powers, had been under the supervision of another power until 1948 when under the recommendation of the UN, Israel Declared Independence through self-determination. After the act of Aggression on the part of the Arab League and the subsequent Armistice Agreements, all the remaining territory not under Israeli sovereignty, was occupied or annexed by the Arab League until 1967. The UN "Acknowledges the proclamation of the State of Palestine by the Palestine National Council on 15 November 1988." For the last three decades, the designation "Palestine" should be used in place of the designation "Palestine Liberation Organization." The Arab Palestinians have had a totally dysfunctional leadership and have not been able to form a single governing body to exercise their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967. To-date, the the
people of the territory occupied since 1967 have been parasitic on donor nation contributions and a popular supported state sponsor of terrorism.
Most Respectfully,
R
That is not another "claim." That is history. How do you post here and know so little?
Oh for the love of all that is holy. Do you not understand debate? You present a claim. (Israel has no legal status; Palestine became a State in 1924). And then you defend that claim by providing supporting arguments. Then I challenge those arguments and offer counter-arguments.
Jeez.
Would Israel become the government of the existing state of Palestine or would it be a successor state to Palestine? Different rules would apply.P F Tinmore
Yes, I would have to agree with Rocco (not surprising) that there is no basis for understanding that Palestine (nor Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan) achieved full Statehood in 1924 as a result of the Treaty of Lausanne, not the least of which is because it fails to meet the Montevideo criteria which you brought up.
Still, even if this were true, you have not laid out an argument for how the existence of this "state of Palestine" prohibits the existence of the State of Israel, either then or later when they declared independence. Indeed, what makes you think that Israel was not and is not the sovereign over the entire territory formerly known as "Palestine"? If Palestine was a State, wasn't it governed by the Jewish people? Why would that not have been the sole successor government of the British? It seems to me you are making a very good argument for the entire territory being under Israel's sovereignty.
Would Israel become the government of the existing state of Palestine or would it be a successor state to Palestine? Different rules would apply.
So you are saying that a government was established in the former mandate of Palestine and they changed the name of the country to Israel.Would Israel become the government of the existing state of Palestine or would it be a successor state to Palestine? Different rules would apply.
Feel free to present your arguments for either scenario. If you would wish to indulge my preferences, I would argue that the government of the Jewish National Homeland became the only national governing body in the hole left by the British abandonment of the Mandate -- thus the State of Palestine (if it previously existed) was transferred from the British trust to the government of "Palestine" which declared independence and renamed the place Israel.
Then all of Palestine would be called Israel. Since there have been no treaties ceding any territory to another country then all of the former mandate would be Israel including the West Bank and Gaza. Then all of the people in the West Bank and Gaza would be Israeli citizens. That would also mean that all Palestinian refugees would be Israeli citizens.
The problem with this scenario is that a government derives its legitimacy from the will of the people. That government, and many of its laws, are created against the wishes of the vast majority of the people.
Not so. The vast majority of the people have never been allowed to vote.If the "will of the people" brings about de jure by legitimizing de facto -- then you have already lost that argument as well.
You are making a leap there.IF it was then it seems to me the governing body of that State was Britain and after that the Jewish people in the form of the Israeli government.
I'm making a leap here? Oh, the irony. Remember you are trying to defend the idea that Israel has no legal status. I'm just countering your arguments.You are making a leap there.
Close enough for the purposes of our discussion.It is true that the British were the appointed government. But Britain was not the sovereign of the territory. It was merely a trustee.
Yeah, no. The people hold the right to sovereignty (self-determination) but the "people" are not sovereign. (Had the people BEEN sovereign, there would have been no need for a Mandate.) People can hold the RIGHT to sovereignty (self-determination) without actually holding de jure or de facto sovereignty. Examples: The people of Scotland, the Quebecois, Catalans, Kurds, Tibetans, Cypriots, Western Saharans, First Nations peoples of the Americas, etc, etc, etc. (In my opinion, the Arab Palestinians fall into this category -- they hold the RIGHT to sovereignty over some territory, but at the moment, do not have actual sovereignty (excepting Gaza). Anyone who uses terms like "occupied territory", by implication, agrees with me.)The people are the sovereigns.
See THAT is an interesting claim you make. And directly contradictory to Montevideo, btw. Are you withdrawing Montevideo as criteria for State formation? How can a State be a State, de jure, without a government? How can you measure whether a State is a State if there is no government?A government is not required.
And this goes back to a question I asked at the beginning of this chain of dialogue: what, do you think, was the de jure condition of the territory from the end of the Ottoman Empire through to today? Give me a timeline.So when Israel set up shop in Palestine it was not an empty place up for grabs.
In point of fact, it was populated by TWO such peoples.It was already populated by a people who had the right to self determination without external interference, the right to independence and sovereignty, and the right to territorial integrity.
You can violate the right to sovereignty but you cannot negate it.Anyone who uses terms like "occupied territory", by implication, agrees with me.)
I don't agree but even if true one cannot violate the rights of the other. Nobody has the right to violate the rights of others.In point of fact, it was populated by TWO such peoples.
I'm making a leap here? Oh, the irony. Remember you are trying to defend the idea that Israel has no legal status. I'm just countering your arguments.You are making a leap there.
Close enough for the purposes of our discussion.It is true that the British were the appointed government. But Britain was not the sovereign of the territory. It was merely a trustee.
Yeah, no. The people hold the right to sovereignty (self-determination) but the "people" are not sovereign. (Had the people BEEN sovereign, there would have been no need for a Mandate.) People can hold the RIGHT to sovereignty (self-determination) without actually holding de jure or de facto sovereignty. Examples: The people of Scotland, the Quebecois, Catalans, Kurds, Tibetans, Cypriots, Western Saharans, First Nations peoples of the Americas, etc, etc, etc. (In my opinion, the Arab Palestinians fall into this category -- they hold the RIGHT to sovereignty over some territory, but at the moment, do not have actual sovereignty (excepting Gaza). Anyone who uses terms like "occupied territory", by implication, agrees with me.)The people are the sovereigns.
To create an analogy: there is a great deal of difference between my right to marry and my being married, de jure.
This is KEY to our discussion at the moment. At what point do a peoples (holding the inherent right to sovereignty) actually obtain sovereignty and through which acts or legal instruments does this occur? What creates de jure sovereignty?
See THAT is an interesting claim you make. And directly contradictory to Montevideo, btw. Are you withdrawing Montevideo as criteria for State formation? How can a State be a State, de jure, without a government? How can you measure whether a State is a State if there is no government?A government is not required.
And this goes back to a question I asked at the beginning of this chain of dialogue: what, do you think, was the de jure condition of the territory from the end of the Ottoman Empire through to today? Give me a timeline.So when Israel set up shop in Palestine it was not an empty place up for grabs.
In point of fact, it was populated by TWO such peoples.It was already populated by a people who had the right to self determination without external interference, the right to independence and sovereignty, and the right to territorial integrity.
And this goes back to a question I asked at the beginning of this chain of dialogue: what, do you think, was the de jure condition of the territory from the end of the Ottoman Empire through to today? Give me a timeline.
Palestine is a state that has been occupied since its inception.And this goes back to a question I asked at the beginning of this chain of dialogue: what, do you think, was the de jure condition of the territory from the end of the Ottoman Empire through to today? Give me a timeline.
You can violate the right to sovereignty but you cannot negate it.
Israel never had any land to cede.6. Parts of territory ceded to Arab Palestinian government (Areas A and B) and parts held in trust for eventual independent State of Palestine (homeland for the Arab Palestinians) (Area C), with final international border to be determined through negotiation and peace treaty. (1993-present)
