Israel's Legal Right To Exist

[Phoenall]

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.

HOW DO YOU THINK RIGHTS COME TO IN EXISTENCE THEN.

No right to bear arms in the US until it was negotiated, no right to peaceful protest until it was negotiated. No right to free determination until it was negotiated, no right to free elections until it was negotiated.


SO RIGHTS ARE NEGOTIABLE OTHERWISE THEY WOULD NOT EXIST.

 

[Phoenall]

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?

Cant you even remember your own links that you post now. Go and have a look at your posts from the last week and see what you posted

 

[Phoenall]

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.

He isnt, he is giving an example. But if you want to be pedantic then in 1919 who pointed the gun at whom, then again in 1921 and 1929 ?

 

[Phoenall]

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.

Who invaded the mandate of palestine in 1947 with the intention of wiping out the Jews, and then had to be saved and protected by the UN when the poorly armed and lesser Jews were kicking their buts big time

 

[Shusha]

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.

I would like you to name the year the "war" started and the initiating event.


I strongly suspect that your answer is "the day the Jewish people started moving home". Which indicates, again, that the mere presence of Jews, the mere idea of having them as neighbors is the cause of the conflict and gives Arab Muslims the right to kill them.

Hey, guess what? I agree with you. The root cause of the conflict is the deep-seated, religiously supported, irrational, antisemitism of the Arab Muslims.

 

[Phoenall]

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.

BULLSHIT as Britain did what it could under its remit, it was the arab muslims that refused to talk so they lost. The Jews followed the rules and gained a nation

 

[Phoenall]

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.

And this is your standard duck when you realise the links have been given before over 100 times.

 

[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

Nobody can be forced into negotiating away their rights.

What rights did they have in 1917 that they were forced to negotiate away, seeing as they refused to even talk and so lost everything in the process. So negotiating could have given them even more rights

 

[Phoenall]

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.

Another duck because you dont have a clue, so you resort to islamonazi propaganda talking points

 

[Phoenall]

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.

YES IT WAS

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, but do you even know what that means?

Rights are not negotiable.

(BIG QUESTION)

What do you get when you have a "right?"

When you say that you have a "RIGHT to Self-determination;" what is is?

What are you negotiating if you where to negotiate the "Right to Self-Determination?"
​

I don't get what you are driving at. Are you saying that someone took the "Right of Self-Determination" away from the Palestinians? What did the take from you? Can you show me one?

The Palestinians have the "Right of Self-Determination." No one took anything away from them. They may exercise the "Right of Self-Determination" any time they want.

Show me what the difference it makes when the Palestinians:

• Have the Right of Self-determination.
• Don't have the Right to Self-determination.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

If a Power (Britain) prevented another party (the Palestinians) from exercising the right to self-determination, it is effectively taking the right way. The effort to prevent the Christian and Muslim Palestinians from exercising the right to self-determination began in 1922, as per the official, on the record correspondence to the Palestinian Delegation from the British Colonial Office, and continued through to 1948. This effort to prevent the Christian and Muslim Palestinians for exercising this right was adopted by the United Nations at the end of the Mandate through the Partition Plan which placed 1/3 of the Christians and Muslims (over 400 thousand) under Jew rule with no possible way to exercise self-determination. All of which ran counter to the United Nations Charter and the Covenants on rights as per below.


The second para. of first article of the United Nations Charter reads:

"The purposes of the United Nations are:

2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace...."

The first article of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights reads:

"1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development...."

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Apples and Oranges. You have not posted a proper question, thus you are looking for a flawed answer.

Mid-night, 14/15 May 1948 was a terminator between the end of the Non-International Armed Conflict (NIAC) and the beginning of the International Armed Conflict (IAC).

The definition of an IAC is found in Common Article 2 to the Fourth Geneva Conventions (GCIV). It states that the rules of IAC apply to “all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties . . . . “ Thus, an IAC can only be between two or more states.

After to 14/15 May 1948:

• Israel is a "High Contracting Party (HCP)" having declared independence.
• All the Arab League participants: Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Yemen, and Egypt, are individually HCP.
• The Arab Palestinians are not constituents of a HCP.
​

Prior to 14/15 May 1948:

• There is no State of Israel. Thus a non-existent Israel could not be a HCP.
• There is no Sate of Palestine. Thus the a non-existent Arab Palestinian State could not be a HCP.
​

THUS, by international Humanitarian Law (IHL) the Arab-Jewish conflict in the territory subject to the Mandate COULD NOT BE an IAC; neither being a HCP. An IAC can only be between two or more HCPs.

HOWEVER, after the Declaration of Independence and recognition by at least one nation, Israel is a HCP, being invaded by elements of several HCPs of the Arab League; making it an IAC.

Therefore:

• Prior to 14/15 May 1948, the Arab-Jewish Conflict in Palestine, as defined by the Allied Powers, was a NAIC.
• After 14/15 May 1948, the Arab-Jewish Conflict becomes an IAC.
​

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.

(COMMENT)

YOU are wrong!

The Arab Invasion by the Arab League marks the beginning of the NIAC. It is not the middle of the history.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

Yes, I understand that you "cut 'n' paste." But do you know what it means?

If a Power (Britain) prevented another party (the Palestinians) from exercising the right to self-determination, it is effectively taking the right way. The effort to prevent the Christian and Muslim Palestinians from exercising the right to self-determination began in 1922, as per the official, on the record correspondence to the Palestinian Delegation from the British Colonial Office, and continued through to 1948. This effort to prevent the Christian and Muslim Palestinians for exercising this right was adopted by the United Nations at the end of the Mandate through the Partition Plan which placed 1/3 of the Christians and Muslims (over 400 thousand) under Jew rule with no possible way to exercise self-determination. All of which ran counter to the United Nations Charter and the Covenants on rights as per below.


The second para. of first article of the United Nations Charter reads:

"The purposes of the United Nations are:

2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace...."

The first article of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights reads:

"1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development...."

(COMMENT)

Exactly who took what from the Arab Palestinians.

When you imply that someone took or denied the Arab Palestinians the "Right of Self-Determination," exactly when did that do that. Do you have a date, time and place?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

I did not cut and pass moron, but thanks for the compliment. And, your reading comprehension is faulty. I said the British and then the UN prevented the Christian and Muslim Palestinians from exercising said right.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici,

Does this answer my question?

I did not cut and pass moron, but thanks for the compliment.

v/r
R

 

[montelatici]

montelatici,

Does this answer my question?

I did not cut and pass moron, but thanks for the compliment.

v/r
R

The second part of the post does.

 

[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.

Who invaded the mandate of palestine in 1947 with the intention of wiping out the Jews, and then had to be saved and protected by the UN when the poorly armed and lesser Jews were kicking their buts big time

Who was, in fact, in Palestine ethnically cleansing Palestinians from their homes? There were about 300,000 Palestinian refugees before the 1948 war. You know, the war that the liars say the Arabs started.

 

[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.

I would like you to name the year the "war" started and the initiating event.


I strongly suspect that your answer is "the day the Jewish people started moving home". Which indicates, again, that the mere presence of Jews, the mere idea of having them as neighbors is the cause of the conflict and gives Arab Muslims the right to kill them.

Hey, guess what? I agree with you. The root cause of the conflict is the deep-seated, religiously supported, irrational, antisemitism of the Arab Muslims.

The sad part is that you actually believe that crap. Here is a brief overview of the problem. Of course I would happily discuss anything she says that you feel is not true.

 

[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.

BULLSHIT as Britain did what it could under its remit, it was the arab muslims that refused to talk so they lost. The Jews followed the rules and gained a nation

The Palestinians contacted Britain many times but were ignored. It was Britain who refused to negotiate.