Israel's Legal Right To Exist

[Phoenall]

"advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone"

Britain did not render advice or assistance to the Palestinians. They kicked the Palestinians to the curb and catered to the foreign Zionist colonial project.

Read your own links again and see were the arab muslims refuse to take part in any discussions or negotiations. So it wasnt the British holding them back, they cant force them to take part so now they have lost out because they were stupid

 

[Phoenall]

The above is another of the pointless articles you have cut and pasted multiple times across multiple threads. It is as pointless

Well, that explains why you don't know anything.

Does you constant demands of links already provided not show that you dont know anything as well ?

 

[Phoenall]

Now what disagreement is only on the Israeli side as they have constantly asked to live in peace,

They have constantly asked to live in peace on Palestinian land.

How is that supposed to be accepted?

Because it is only mandate of palestine land as the arab muslims have yet to claim any actual land. And it is Jewish land under international laws, so how come arab muslim illegal migrants are living there ?

 

[Bleipriester]

Bleipriester, et al,

Yeah, this is one-hell-of-a subject. It really kicks in on skills in formal presentations. And this particular question (The Case of the Golan Heights) is a compound and complex question; if nothing else.

In the Original Posting - "Israel's Legal Right To Exist" - the status of the Golan Heights is irrelevant. The Golan Heights Issue that starts from a 1981 timeframe. The question of existance starts from a 1948 timeframe. IF Israel has no "Right" to exist, THEN it has not "Right" to hold any territory. The question, in terms of "Rights" relative to the Golan Heights is moot.

"Rights" + "Title" + "Sovereignty" are all independent concepts in relation to "Reality" (Ground Truth).

The UN now demands that the occupied Golan returns to Syria.

(REFERENCES)

Israel seized 1,200 square kilometers (460 square miles) of the Golan during the Six-Day War of 1967, then annexed it in 1981 in a move never recognized by the international community.

A first group of 127 UN Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) peacekeepers returned Monday to a camp on the Syrian-held side of the Golan Heights, two years after withdrawing amid clashes with Al-Qaeda-linked Syrian rebels.
United Nations (United States) (AFP)

The UN demanded that Israel comply with the international legitimacy's resolutions on the occupied Syrian Golan, particularly the Security Council resolution no. 497 of 1981 that declared Israel's decision to impose its laws and jurisdiction on the Golan as "null and void and without international legal effect".
Sign of the Times (SOTT) Wed, 18 Nov 2015
UN demands Israel annul illegal annexation of Syria's Golan Heights

UNSC Resolution 242 (1967) Middle East Conflict (22 Nov)
UNSC Resolution 338 (1973) Israel-Syrian Arab Republic (22 Oct)
UNSC Resolution 485 (1981) Israel-Syrian Arab Republic (22 May)
UNSC Resolution 493 (1981) Israel-Syrian Arab Republic (23 Nov)
UNSC Resolution 497 (1981) Israel-Syrian Arab Republic (17 Dec)

General Assembly A/70/480 (1 DEC 2015) Permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and of the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan over their natural resources

General Assembly severely criticizes the "Occupying Power" (Israel) and leave the issue of Arab Palestinian wrong doing, Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence completely unadressed as a causation for current outcomes.​

(DIRECT OBSERVATION)

View attachment 100557​

(COMMENT)

It is unlikely that anything the UN does will actually change the ground truth. In fact, it is more likely that any enforcement action will trigger open conflict --- which --- will (with greater probability) result (yet again) even greater losses and casualties for the Arab Palestinians to bear. This would even be more likely if the Arab Palestinians ignite violence in the City of Jerusalem or the Golan Heights.

The UNDOF, much like the UNEF in the Sinai, will not act as a barrier - but step aside at the first sign of trouble just like the UNEF did in 1967.

Currently, the only military forces (land, sea, or air) in the region (not currently engaging DAESH, another similar radical islamic movement) are pointed towards Israel. Other than Israel, there are no Allied Forces capable of influencing the battlefield in time to "prevent an armed conflict."

The regional Arab nations (in this DAESH turbulant region) have to exercise some discretion in the ignition of a conflict. Should the conflict start in the significant combat loss in Arab Forces, DAESH will not hesitate to take advantage of any weakness.

Most Respectfully,
R

The definitions of the "right to exist" vary in Israel´s case. For some, it is the right to do anything and the right to not to be criticized. Israel is without mistakes and its actions above human ability to judge, they say.

According to the hate sites and islamonazi propaganda

According to people who have discussed it with people like you.

No as we dont discus such things we are on a much higher level and discus such things as why dont the arab muslims employ international law to lift the blockade and occupation.........

No, you are liar of the lowest level of hoaxing.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, this is very much the perpetual Arab Palestinian victim play. The longest running play across the Orient Express Line.

"advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone"
And nothing even remotely Palestinian meets that criteria.

Rocco, you are sooooo full of shit. Who can stand alone with a gun in their face?

(COMMENT)

In 1948, who pointed the gun at who? I believe it was the Arab League that initiated the Armed Aggression.

In 1967, it was the Jordan that opened fire on the Israelis first. And it was the Egyptians the push the UNEF-1 out of the way so it could stage 100,000 soldiers, 1000 tanks, and put 900 artillery pieces in ranges, right along the Israeli Border.

It was in 1972, the Arab Palestinians at the 1972 Summer Olympics in Munich; followed by the sneak attack in 1973 by the Arab League once again.

The various security barriers and blockades did no start being put in place until 2000, nearly three decades after the Arab initiated Yom Kipper War.

It has been the Arab Palestinians right and privilege to be quarantine, not just by Israel, but by other Arab Countries as well. It was Jordan that severed all ties with the West Bank. It was Egypt that began to seal-off the Sinai Border and fill-in tunnels.

If there was gun pointing, it was a graduated solution Arab Palestinian aggression. Israeli suffered 22 terrorist attacks in the 1990's; a decade before the beginning of the Security Barrier Wall construction.

If we talk about who pointed the gun at who, the Arab Palestinians were deserving of the special attention for living in peace.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

Bleipriester, et al,

Yeah, this is one-hell-of-a subject. It really kicks in on skills in formal presentations. And this particular question (The Case of the Golan Heights) is a compound and complex question; if nothing else.

In the Original Posting - "Israel's Legal Right To Exist" - the status of the Golan Heights is irrelevant. The Golan Heights Issue that starts from a 1981 timeframe. The question of existance starts from a 1948 timeframe. IF Israel has no "Right" to exist, THEN it has not "Right" to hold any territory. The question, in terms of "Rights" relative to the Golan Heights is moot.

"Rights" + "Title" + "Sovereignty" are all independent concepts in relation to "Reality" (Ground Truth).

(REFERENCES)

Israel seized 1,200 square kilometers (460 square miles) of the Golan during the Six-Day War of 1967, then annexed it in 1981 in a move never recognized by the international community.

A first group of 127 UN Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) peacekeepers returned Monday to a camp on the Syrian-held side of the Golan Heights, two years after withdrawing amid clashes with Al-Qaeda-linked Syrian rebels.
United Nations (United States) (AFP)

The UN demanded that Israel comply with the international legitimacy's resolutions on the occupied Syrian Golan, particularly the Security Council resolution no. 497 of 1981 that declared Israel's decision to impose its laws and jurisdiction on the Golan as "null and void and without international legal effect".
Sign of the Times (SOTT) Wed, 18 Nov 2015
UN demands Israel annul illegal annexation of Syria's Golan Heights

UNSC Resolution 242 (1967) Middle East Conflict (22 Nov)
UNSC Resolution 338 (1973) Israel-Syrian Arab Republic (22 Oct)
UNSC Resolution 485 (1981) Israel-Syrian Arab Republic (22 May)
UNSC Resolution 493 (1981) Israel-Syrian Arab Republic (23 Nov)
UNSC Resolution 497 (1981) Israel-Syrian Arab Republic (17 Dec)

General Assembly A/70/480 (1 DEC 2015) Permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and of the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan over their natural resources

General Assembly severely criticizes the "Occupying Power" (Israel) and leave the issue of Arab Palestinian wrong doing, Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence completely unadressed as a causation for current outcomes.​

(DIRECT OBSERVATION)

View attachment 100557​

(COMMENT)

It is unlikely that anything the UN does will actually change the ground truth. In fact, it is more likely that any enforcement action will trigger open conflict --- which --- will (with greater probability) result (yet again) even greater losses and casualties for the Arab Palestinians to bear. This would even be more likely if the Arab Palestinians ignite violence in the City of Jerusalem or the Golan Heights.

The UNDOF, much like the UNEF in the Sinai, will not act as a barrier - but step aside at the first sign of trouble just like the UNEF did in 1967.

Currently, the only military forces (land, sea, or air) in the region (not currently engaging DAESH, another similar radical islamic movement) are pointed towards Israel. Other than Israel, there are no Allied Forces capable of influencing the battlefield in time to "prevent an armed conflict."

The regional Arab nations (in this DAESH turbulant region) have to exercise some discretion in the ignition of a conflict. Should the conflict start in the significant combat loss in Arab Forces, DAESH will not hesitate to take advantage of any weakness.

Most Respectfully,
R

The definitions of the "right to exist" vary in Israel´s case. For some, it is the right to do anything and the right to not to be criticized. Israel is without mistakes and its actions above human ability to judge, they say.

According to the hate sites and islamonazi propaganda

According to people who have discussed it with people like you.

No as we dont discus such things we are on a much higher level and discus such things as why dont the arab muslims employ international law to lift the blockade and occupation.........

No, you are liar of the lowest level of hoaxing.

Go away little boy and play with the bottles, you might lose an eye like old hooky did and become some islamionazi cult hero figure

 

[P F Tinmore]

montelatici, et al,

You are just too funny.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yeah, you keep saying that. But it is entirely the WRONG interpretation.

You post this all the time. Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed any sovereignty. The LoN did say who would be the benefactors of their tutelage. They used terms like the people, the inhabitants, the natives, and the indigenous. There was no mention of foreigners.

So who were these people? The treaty of Lausanne spelled that out.

SECTION II .
NATIONALITY.
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.​

They were talking about the people who actually lived there being citizens of their respective states. No foreigners were mentioned. The Palestinians have the right to sovereignty on their land as affirmed by subsequent UN resolutions.

(COMMENT)

You get this wrong every single time, as if repeating it over and over again will somehow change it.

• Article 16 is in the first Part and first Section of the Treaty. It is called: "TERRITORIAL CLAUSES."

§ This section deals with the disposition of territory for which the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic forfeits. In this case, ALL the territory outside the frontiers of the Turkish Republic. The only exception is territorial arrangements covered by special arrangements arising from some previously honored diplomatic relations.
​

• Article 30 is in the first Part and second Section of the Treaty. It is called "NATIONALITY."

§ This section deals with people who the question of nationality might be considered ambiguous under the operation of its law prior to this treaty. It insures that there si a uniform understanding among the various Mandatories as to how certain people are addressed. Although Article 30 mentions no particular territory, in its application relative to the territory under the Mandate of Palestine applies --- as the nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred: The Government of Palestine. That would be from the Mesopotamian Border to the Mediterranean Sea. The use of the word "State" in this case, insures that the citizenship passes into the follow-on Sovereignty as defined by the Mandatory. In this case, the population East of the Jordan River would become citizens of Trans-Jordan when Britain (the Mandatory) formally recognized the Emirate of Transjordan as a state on 15 May 1923 under the leadership of the first Emir (Abdullah).
​

Section I, Article 16, does not determine citizenship, and Section II, Article 30 does not impact the Rights and Title of the Territory. Article 30 says which citizenship the people are assigned based on the territorial determination on Article 16. In the case of Palestine, that authority was delineated in (first) the Palestine Order in Council --- then the Citizenship Order of 1925.

The Territorial Government drives Nationality, NOT the other way around.

Most Respectfully,
R

As usual, you are full of shit Rocco. The Citizenship Order was enacted by the British Government, not by the (territorial) Government of Palestine. Interestingly, this was the only such citizenship order enacted by Great Britain in any of their mandates or territories at that time.

(COMMENT)

GB did make the Order because it had to deal with the establishment of an National Home and deal with the Emirate of Transjordan.

Yes, the Citizenship Order did come from the Mandatory. And the Government of Palestine was the Mandatory in 1925.

The Government of Palestine was the Mandatory (UK) until 15 May 48 when the UNPC became the Government of Palestine.

Privy Council, to order, and it is hereby ordered, as follows:--​

Part i, Paragraph 1: Definitions

"The High Commissioner" shall include every person for the time being administering the Government of Palestine."
​

PART II. EXECUTIVE. Office of High Commissioner. Paragraph 4.

His Majesty may, by a Commission under His Sign Manual and Signet, appoint a fit person to administer the Government of Palestine under the designation of High Commissioner and Commander-in-Chief or such other designation as His Majesty thinks fit, and the person so appointed is hereinafter referred to as the High Commissioner.
​

Where do you think citizenship is granted?

Most Respectfully,
R

Where does it say that a colonial power has the authority to determine who has rights?

Link?

And so you admit at last that the arab muslim colonial powers dont have any rights in palestine, as they are the ones denying Jews and Christians those rights. And you need to be clear on which rights and when they were negotiated ?

Rights are not negotiable.

 

[P F Tinmore]

banned Jews from living in trans Jordan and non Jews from living in the Jewish national home. Remember posting the link that told you this last week ?

What link?

 

[P F Tinmore]

In 1948, who pointed the gun at who? I believe it was the Arab League that initiated the Armed Aggression.

Don't try to start history in the middle.

 

[Hollie]

montelatici, et al,

You are just too funny.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yeah, you keep saying that. But it is entirely the WRONG interpretation.

(COMMENT)

You get this wrong every single time, as if repeating it over and over again will somehow change it.

• Article 16 is in the first Part and first Section of the Treaty. It is called: "TERRITORIAL CLAUSES."

§ This section deals with the disposition of territory for which the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic forfeits. In this case, ALL the territory outside the frontiers of the Turkish Republic. The only exception is territorial arrangements covered by special arrangements arising from some previously honored diplomatic relations.
​

• Article 30 is in the first Part and second Section of the Treaty. It is called "NATIONALITY."

§ This section deals with people who the question of nationality might be considered ambiguous under the operation of its law prior to this treaty. It insures that there si a uniform understanding among the various Mandatories as to how certain people are addressed. Although Article 30 mentions no particular territory, in its application relative to the territory under the Mandate of Palestine applies --- as the nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred: The Government of Palestine. That would be from the Mesopotamian Border to the Mediterranean Sea. The use of the word "State" in this case, insures that the citizenship passes into the follow-on Sovereignty as defined by the Mandatory. In this case, the population East of the Jordan River would become citizens of Trans-Jordan when Britain (the Mandatory) formally recognized the Emirate of Transjordan as a state on 15 May 1923 under the leadership of the first Emir (Abdullah).
​

Section I, Article 16, does not determine citizenship, and Section II, Article 30 does not impact the Rights and Title of the Territory. Article 30 says which citizenship the people are assigned based on the territorial determination on Article 16. In the case of Palestine, that authority was delineated in (first) the Palestine Order in Council --- then the Citizenship Order of 1925.

The Territorial Government drives Nationality, NOT the other way around.

Most Respectfully,
R

As usual, you are full of shit Rocco. The Citizenship Order was enacted by the British Government, not by the (territorial) Government of Palestine. Interestingly, this was the only such citizenship order enacted by Great Britain in any of their mandates or territories at that time.

(COMMENT)

GB did make the Order because it had to deal with the establishment of an National Home and deal with the Emirate of Transjordan.

Yes, the Citizenship Order did come from the Mandatory. And the Government of Palestine was the Mandatory in 1925.

The Government of Palestine was the Mandatory (UK) until 15 May 48 when the UNPC became the Government of Palestine.

Privy Council, to order, and it is hereby ordered, as follows:--​

Part i, Paragraph 1: Definitions

"The High Commissioner" shall include every person for the time being administering the Government of Palestine."
​

PART II. EXECUTIVE. Office of High Commissioner. Paragraph 4.

His Majesty may, by a Commission under His Sign Manual and Signet, appoint a fit person to administer the Government of Palestine under the designation of High Commissioner and Commander-in-Chief or such other designation as His Majesty thinks fit, and the person so appointed is hereinafter referred to as the High Commissioner.
​

Where do you think citizenship is granted?

Most Respectfully,
R

Where does it say that a colonial power has the authority to determine who has rights?

Link?

And so you admit at last that the arab muslim colonial powers dont have any rights in palestine, as they are the ones denying Jews and Christians those rights. And you need to be clear on which rights and when they were negotiated ?

Rights are not negotiable.

Indeed. The Jewish people exercised their right to self-determination. They have been forced to defend that right in the face of Arab-Moslem wars of aggression seeking to deny that right.

 

[Hollie]

In 1948, who pointed the gun at who? I believe it was the Arab League that initiated the Armed Aggression.

Don't try to start history in the middle.

Nice dodge™

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yeah, you keep saying that. But it is entirely the WRONG interpretation.

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.

You post this all the time. Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed any sovereignty. The LoN did say who would be the benefactors of their tutelage. They used terms like the people, the inhabitants, the natives, and the indigenous. There was no mention of foreigners.

So who were these people? The treaty of Lausanne spelled that out.

SECTION II .
NATIONALITY.
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.​

They were talking about the people who actually lived there being citizens of their respective states. No foreigners were mentioned. The Palestinians have the right to sovereignty on their land as affirmed by subsequent UN resolutions.

(COMMENT)

You get this wrong every single time, as if repeating it over and over again will somehow change it.

• Article 16 is in the first Part and first Section of the Treaty. It is called: "TERRITORIAL CLAUSES."

§ This section deals with the disposition of territory for which the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic forfeits. In this case, ALL the territory outside the frontiers of the Turkish Republic. The only exception is territorial arrangements covered by special arrangements arising from some previously honored diplomatic relations.
​

• Article 30 is in the first Part and second Section of the Treaty. It is called "NATIONALITY."

§ This section deals with people who the question of nationality might be considered ambiguous under the operation of its law prior to this treaty. It insures that there si a uniform understanding among the various Mandatories as to how certain people are addressed. Although Article 30 mentions no particular territory, in its application relative to the territory under the Mandate of Palestine applies --- as the nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred: The Government of Palestine. That would be from the Mesopotamian Border to the Mediterranean Sea. The use of the word "State" in this case, insures that the citizenship passes into the follow-on Sovereignty as defined by the Mandatory. In this case, the population East of the Jordan River would become citizens of Trans-Jordan when Britain (the Mandatory) formally recognized the Emirate of Transjordan as a state on 15 May 1923 under the leadership of the first Emir (Abdullah).
​

Section I, Article 16, does not determine citizenship, and Section II, Article 30 does not impact the Rights and Title of the Territory. Article 30 says which citizenship the people are assigned based on the territorial determination on Article 16. In the case of Palestine, that authority was delineated in (first) the Palestine Order in Council --- then the Citizenship Order of 1925.

The Territorial Government drives Nationality, NOT the other way around.

Most Respectfully,
R

As usual, you are full of shit Rocco. The Citizenship Order was enacted by the British Government, not by the (territorial) Government of Palestine. Interestingly, this was the only such citizenship order enacted by Great Britain in any of their mandates or territories at that time.

Are you for real, what was seen as the Government of palestine from 1922 to 1948. There was no arab muslim Government in place was there, no Jewish government and no Christian government. Just the appointed mandatory Government of palestine

Indeed, and that is how Britain left it. Britain failed to do anything but start a hundred year war.

 

[P F Tinmore]

when it gave the arab muslims trans Jordan

Where does it say that?

LoN minutes for the mandate of palestine. And the mandate of palestine
Links given many hundreds of times in the past so you are at fault for not taking them on board

Your standard duck.

 

[P F Tinmore]

"advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone"

Britain did not render advice or assistance to the Palestinians. They kicked the Palestinians to the curb and catered to the foreign Zionist colonial project.

Read your own links again and see were the arab muslims refuse to take part in any discussions or negotiations. So it wasnt the British holding them back, they cant force them to take part so now they have lost out because they were stupid

Nobody can be forced into negotiating away their rights.

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yeah, you keep saying that. But it is entirely the WRONG interpretation.

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.

You post this all the time. Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed any sovereignty. The LoN did say who would be the benefactors of their tutelage. They used terms like the people, the inhabitants, the natives, and the indigenous. There was no mention of foreigners.

So who were these people? The treaty of Lausanne spelled that out.

SECTION II .
NATIONALITY.
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.​

They were talking about the people who actually lived there being citizens of their respective states. No foreigners were mentioned. The Palestinians have the right to sovereignty on their land as affirmed by subsequent UN resolutions.

(COMMENT)

You get this wrong every single time, as if repeating it over and over again will somehow change it.

• Article 16 is in the first Part and first Section of the Treaty. It is called: "TERRITORIAL CLAUSES."

§ This section deals with the disposition of territory for which the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic forfeits. In this case, ALL the territory outside the frontiers of the Turkish Republic. The only exception is territorial arrangements covered by special arrangements arising from some previously honored diplomatic relations.
​

• Article 30 is in the first Part and second Section of the Treaty. It is called "NATIONALITY."

§ This section deals with people who the question of nationality might be considered ambiguous under the operation of its law prior to this treaty. It insures that there si a uniform understanding among the various Mandatories as to how certain people are addressed. Although Article 30 mentions no particular territory, in its application relative to the territory under the Mandate of Palestine applies --- as the nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred: The Government of Palestine. That would be from the Mesopotamian Border to the Mediterranean Sea. The use of the word "State" in this case, insures that the citizenship passes into the follow-on Sovereignty as defined by the Mandatory. In this case, the population East of the Jordan River would become citizens of Trans-Jordan when Britain (the Mandatory) formally recognized the Emirate of Transjordan as a state on 15 May 1923 under the leadership of the first Emir (Abdullah).
​

Section I, Article 16, does not determine citizenship, and Section II, Article 30 does not impact the Rights and Title of the Territory. Article 30 says which citizenship the people are assigned based on the territorial determination on Article 16. In the case of Palestine, that authority was delineated in (first) the Palestine Order in Council --- then the Citizenship Order of 1925.

The Territorial Government drives Nationality, NOT the other way around.

Most Respectfully,
R

As usual, you are full of shit Rocco. The Citizenship Order was enacted by the British Government, not by the (territorial) Government of Palestine. Interestingly, this was the only such citizenship order enacted by Great Britain in any of their mandates or territories at that time.

Are you for real, what was seen as the Government of palestine from 1922 to 1948. There was no arab muslim Government in place was there, no Jewish government and no Christian government. Just the appointed mandatory Government of palestine

Indeed, and that is how Britain left it. Britain failed to do anything but start a hundred year war.

You need to learn history. The Brits didn't start a "hundred year war" in the islamist occupied territories. It was the Islamist Entity that started wars in 1948, 1967, 1973.... why don't you research the history and let me know if I missed any.

 

[Hollie]

"advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone"

Britain did not render advice or assistance to the Palestinians. They kicked the Palestinians to the curb and catered to the foreign Zionist colonial project.

Read your own links again and see were the arab muslims refuse to take part in any discussions or negotiations. So it wasnt the British holding them back, they cant force them to take part so now they have lost out because they were stupid

Nobody can be forced into negotiating away their rights.

Indeed. The Israelis wont negotiate away their rights to a collection of Islamic terrorist franchises.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yeah, you keep saying that. But it is entirely the WRONG interpretation.

You post this all the time. Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed any sovereignty. The LoN did say who would be the benefactors of their tutelage. They used terms like the people, the inhabitants, the natives, and the indigenous. There was no mention of foreigners.

So who were these people? The treaty of Lausanne spelled that out.

SECTION II .
NATIONALITY.
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.​

They were talking about the people who actually lived there being citizens of their respective states. No foreigners were mentioned. The Palestinians have the right to sovereignty on their land as affirmed by subsequent UN resolutions.

(COMMENT)

You get this wrong every single time, as if repeating it over and over again will somehow change it.

• Article 16 is in the first Part and first Section of the Treaty. It is called: "TERRITORIAL CLAUSES."

§ This section deals with the disposition of territory for which the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic forfeits. In this case, ALL the territory outside the frontiers of the Turkish Republic. The only exception is territorial arrangements covered by special arrangements arising from some previously honored diplomatic relations.
​

• Article 30 is in the first Part and second Section of the Treaty. It is called "NATIONALITY."

§ This section deals with people who the question of nationality might be considered ambiguous under the operation of its law prior to this treaty. It insures that there si a uniform understanding among the various Mandatories as to how certain people are addressed. Although Article 30 mentions no particular territory, in its application relative to the territory under the Mandate of Palestine applies --- as the nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred: The Government of Palestine. That would be from the Mesopotamian Border to the Mediterranean Sea. The use of the word "State" in this case, insures that the citizenship passes into the follow-on Sovereignty as defined by the Mandatory. In this case, the population East of the Jordan River would become citizens of Trans-Jordan when Britain (the Mandatory) formally recognized the Emirate of Transjordan as a state on 15 May 1923 under the leadership of the first Emir (Abdullah).
​

Section I, Article 16, does not determine citizenship, and Section II, Article 30 does not impact the Rights and Title of the Territory. Article 30 says which citizenship the people are assigned based on the territorial determination on Article 16. In the case of Palestine, that authority was delineated in (first) the Palestine Order in Council --- then the Citizenship Order of 1925.

The Territorial Government drives Nationality, NOT the other way around.

Most Respectfully,
R

As usual, you are full of shit Rocco. The Citizenship Order was enacted by the British Government, not by the (territorial) Government of Palestine. Interestingly, this was the only such citizenship order enacted by Great Britain in any of their mandates or territories at that time.

Are you for real, what was seen as the Government of palestine from 1922 to 1948. There was no arab muslim Government in place was there, no Jewish government and no Christian government. Just the appointed mandatory Government of palestine

Indeed, and that is how Britain left it. Britain failed to do anything but start a hundred year war.

You need to learn history. The Brits didn't start a "hundred year war" in the islamist occupied territories. It was the Islamist Entity that started wars in 1948, 1967, 1973.... why don't you research the history and let me know if I missed any.

Sure.

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yeah, you keep saying that. But it is entirely the WRONG interpretation.

(COMMENT)

You get this wrong every single time, as if repeating it over and over again will somehow change it.

• Article 16 is in the first Part and first Section of the Treaty. It is called: "TERRITORIAL CLAUSES."

§ This section deals with the disposition of territory for which the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic forfeits. In this case, ALL the territory outside the frontiers of the Turkish Republic. The only exception is territorial arrangements covered by special arrangements arising from some previously honored diplomatic relations.
​

• Article 30 is in the first Part and second Section of the Treaty. It is called "NATIONALITY."

§ This section deals with people who the question of nationality might be considered ambiguous under the operation of its law prior to this treaty. It insures that there si a uniform understanding among the various Mandatories as to how certain people are addressed. Although Article 30 mentions no particular territory, in its application relative to the territory under the Mandate of Palestine applies --- as the nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred: The Government of Palestine. That would be from the Mesopotamian Border to the Mediterranean Sea. The use of the word "State" in this case, insures that the citizenship passes into the follow-on Sovereignty as defined by the Mandatory. In this case, the population East of the Jordan River would become citizens of Trans-Jordan when Britain (the Mandatory) formally recognized the Emirate of Transjordan as a state on 15 May 1923 under the leadership of the first Emir (Abdullah).
​

Section I, Article 16, does not determine citizenship, and Section II, Article 30 does not impact the Rights and Title of the Territory. Article 30 says which citizenship the people are assigned based on the territorial determination on Article 16. In the case of Palestine, that authority was delineated in (first) the Palestine Order in Council --- then the Citizenship Order of 1925.

The Territorial Government drives Nationality, NOT the other way around.

Most Respectfully,
R

As usual, you are full of shit Rocco. The Citizenship Order was enacted by the British Government, not by the (territorial) Government of Palestine. Interestingly, this was the only such citizenship order enacted by Great Britain in any of their mandates or territories at that time.

Are you for real, what was seen as the Government of palestine from 1922 to 1948. There was no arab muslim Government in place was there, no Jewish government and no Christian government. Just the appointed mandatory Government of palestine

Indeed, and that is how Britain left it. Britain failed to do anything but start a hundred year war.

You need to learn history. The Brits didn't start a "hundred year war" in the islamist occupied territories. It was the Islamist Entity that started wars in 1948, 1967, 1973.... why don't you research the history and let me know if I missed any.

Sure.

Nice dodge™

So, was it or was it not the Islamist Entity™ that started wars in 1948, 1967, 1973... and others I might have missed.

You didn't do you assignment and research those Islamic terrorist wars of aggression. Odd that you would whine about wars when it was your Islamic terrorist heroes who have instigated those wars and lost in humiliating fashion.

How fortunate for you that Islamics died by the thousands in those wars. It helps sustain your pathology of IJH.

 

[P F Tinmore]

So, was it or was it not the Islamist Entity™ that started wars in 1948, 1967, 1973... and others I might have missed.

It was not. You are starting your history in the middle of the war.

 

[Hollie]

So, was it or was it not the Islamist Entity™ that started wars in 1948, 1967, 1973... and others I might have missed.

It was not. You are starting your history in the middle of the war.

Nice dodge™

I'm not at all surprised you danced around addressing the wars of aggression waged and lost by Arabs-Moslems.