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.
No amount of "Jihadi love" poems are enough to hide the evident:That is what Israel says.A Poet Behind Bars, by #DareenTatour Translated by Tariq al Haydar In prison, I met people too numerous to count: Killer and criminal, thief and liar, the honest and those who disbelieve, the lost and confused, the wretched and the hungry. Then, the sick of my homeland, born out of pain, refused to go along with injustice until they became children whose innocence was violated. The world’s compulsion left them stunned. They grew older. No, their sadness grew, strengthening with repression, like roses in salted soil. They embraced love without fear, and were condemned for declaring, “We love the land endlessly,” oblivious to their deeds… So their love freed them. See, prison is for lovers. I interrogated my soul during moments of doubt and distraction: “What of your crime?” Its meaning escapes me now. I said the thing and revealed my thoughts; I wrote about the current injustice, wishes in ink, a poem I wrote... The charge has worn my body, from my toes to the top of my head, for I am a poet in prison, a poet in the land of art. I am accused of words, my pen the instrument. Ink— blood of the heart— bears witness and reads the charges. Listen, my destiny, my life, to what the judge said: A poem stands accused, my poem morphs into a crime. In the land of freedom, the artist’s fate is prison. Written on November 2, 2015, Jelemeh Prison, the day I received the indictment.
What love?
She wanted to be the next Jihadi martyr and openly incited others to do so.
Was denied that privilege, caught beforehand - now she writes about "love" from her cell in the jail.
Charles Manson wrote poetry as well...
(COMMENT)How can you be so confused by simple language?RE: Palestine Today
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,
This is one of your greatest strategies. "Make it up as you go along."
(COMMENT)The title and rights went straight to the Palestinians. Britain never annexed or otherwise claimed the territory.in the capacity of the executor of the territories in which all title and rights had been renounced by the Ottoman Empire
Article 16 says nothing of the kind.
ARTICLE 16.
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.
That would be to the Allied Parties.
In that period of time, "Palestine" was the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies (AKA Palestine).
For the purposes of this Order and pending the introduction of an Order in Council regulating Palestinian citizenship, the following persons shall be deemed to be Palestinian citizens:--
(a)Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the date of commencement of this Order.
(b)All persons of other than Turkish nationality habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the said date, who shall within two calendar months of the said date make application for Palestinian citizenship in such form and before such officer as may be prescribed by the High Commissioner.
A "Palestinian" was --- whoever the Mandatory says. YOU don't get to choose.
Most Respectfully,
R
---------------------
Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:
“Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”
--------------------
And what state was that territory transferred to? Who got that citizenship?
--------------------
The automatic, ipso facto, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:
“Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”------------------
Where do you get confused?
No amount of "Jihadi love" poems are enough to hide the evident:That is what Israel says.A Poet Behind Bars, by #DareenTatour Translated by Tariq al Haydar In prison, I met people too numerous to count: Killer and criminal, thief and liar, the honest and those who disbelieve, the lost and confused, the wretched and the hungry. Then, the sick of my homeland, born out of pain, refused to go along with injustice until they became children whose innocence was violated. The world’s compulsion left them stunned. They grew older. No, their sadness grew, strengthening with repression, like roses in salted soil. They embraced love without fear, and were condemned for declaring, “We love the land endlessly,” oblivious to their deeds… So their love freed them. See, prison is for lovers. I interrogated my soul during moments of doubt and distraction: “What of your crime?” Its meaning escapes me now. I said the thing and revealed my thoughts; I wrote about the current injustice, wishes in ink, a poem I wrote... The charge has worn my body, from my toes to the top of my head, for I am a poet in prison, a poet in the land of art. I am accused of words, my pen the instrument. Ink— blood of the heart— bears witness and reads the charges. Listen, my destiny, my life, to what the judge said: A poem stands accused, my poem morphs into a crime. In the land of freedom, the artist’s fate is prison. Written on November 2, 2015, Jelemeh Prison, the day I received the indictment.
What love?
She wanted to be the next Jihadi martyr and openly incited others to do so.
Was denied that privilege, caught beforehand - now she writes about "love" from her cell in the jail.
Charles Manson wrote poetry as well...
It was her who posted "I want to be the next martyr", not Israel.
It was her who wrote "follow the caravans of martyrs", "resist the peaceful solution" - not Israel.
It was You, not Israel, who posted Palestinian videos of open calls to go murder Jews and go die together.
No amount of "Jihadi love" poems are enough to hide the evident:That is what Israel says.A Poet Behind Bars, by #DareenTatour Translated by Tariq al Haydar In prison, I met people too numerous to count: Killer and criminal, thief and liar, the honest and those who disbelieve, the lost and confused, the wretched and the hungry. Then, the sick of my homeland, born out of pain, refused to go along with injustice until they became children whose innocence was violated. The world’s compulsion left them stunned. They grew older. No, their sadness grew, strengthening with repression, like roses in salted soil. They embraced love without fear, and were condemned for declaring, “We love the land endlessly,” oblivious to their deeds… So their love freed them. See, prison is for lovers. I interrogated my soul during moments of doubt and distraction: “What of your crime?” Its meaning escapes me now. I said the thing and revealed my thoughts; I wrote about the current injustice, wishes in ink, a poem I wrote... The charge has worn my body, from my toes to the top of my head, for I am a poet in prison, a poet in the land of art. I am accused of words, my pen the instrument. Ink— blood of the heart— bears witness and reads the charges. Listen, my destiny, my life, to what the judge said: A poem stands accused, my poem morphs into a crime. In the land of freedom, the artist’s fate is prison. Written on November 2, 2015, Jelemeh Prison, the day I received the indictment.
What love?
She wanted to be the next Jihadi martyr and openly incited others to do so.
Was denied that privilege, caught beforehand - now she writes about "love" from her cell in the jail.
Charles Manson wrote poetry as well...
It was her who posted "I want to be the next martyr", not Israel.
It was her who wrote "follow the caravans of martyrs", "resist the peaceful solution" - not Israel.
It was You, not Israel, who posted Palestinian videos of open calls to go murder Jews and go die together.
You are looking at this through Israel colored glasses. That is why your view is so distorted. My post also matches article 22 of the LoN Covenant.RE: Palestine Today
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,
There is no confusion on my part.
(COMMENT)How can you be so confused by simple language?RE: Palestine Today
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,
This is one of your greatest strategies. "Make it up as you go along."
(COMMENT)The title and rights went straight to the Palestinians. Britain never annexed or otherwise claimed the territory.in the capacity of the executor of the territories in which all title and rights had been renounced by the Ottoman Empire
Article 16 says nothing of the kind.
ARTICLE 16.
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.
That would be to the Allied Parties.
In that period of time, "Palestine" was the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies (AKA Palestine).
For the purposes of this Order and pending the introduction of an Order in Council regulating Palestinian citizenship, the following persons shall be deemed to be Palestinian citizens:--
(a)Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the date of commencement of this Order.
(b)All persons of other than Turkish nationality habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the said date, who shall within two calendar months of the said date make application for Palestinian citizenship in such form and before such officer as may be prescribed by the High Commissioner.
A "Palestinian" was --- whoever the Mandatory says. YOU don't get to choose.
Most Respectfully,
R
---------------------
Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:
“Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”
--------------------
And what state was that territory transferred to? Who got that citizenship?
--------------------
The automatic, ipso facto, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:
“Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”------------------
Where do you get confused?
You simply do not know what territory was transferred since the Treaty was not written to exclusively cover the Middle East.
Second, you totally ignore Article 16.
Third, you somehow believe that the Allied Powers would write a treaty, after the fact, that would invalidate what they had already done.
The Allied Powers wrote the treaty, they understood what the treaty meant and they wrote the treaty that would cover what they had already started. But the reality is, that no one is going to go backward in time and tell the Allied Powers that they were wrong in their interpretation of what they wrote.
Most Respectfully,
R
No amount of "Jihadi love" poems are enough to hide the evident:That is what Israel says.A Poet Behind Bars, by #DareenTatour Translated by Tariq al Haydar In prison, I met people too numerous to count: Killer and criminal, thief and liar, the honest and those who disbelieve, the lost and confused, the wretched and the hungry. Then, the sick of my homeland, born out of pain, refused to go along with injustice until they became children whose innocence was violated. The world’s compulsion left them stunned. They grew older. No, their sadness grew, strengthening with repression, like roses in salted soil. They embraced love without fear, and were condemned for declaring, “We love the land endlessly,” oblivious to their deeds… So their love freed them. See, prison is for lovers. I interrogated my soul during moments of doubt and distraction: “What of your crime?” Its meaning escapes me now. I said the thing and revealed my thoughts; I wrote about the current injustice, wishes in ink, a poem I wrote... The charge has worn my body, from my toes to the top of my head, for I am a poet in prison, a poet in the land of art. I am accused of words, my pen the instrument. Ink— blood of the heart— bears witness and reads the charges. Listen, my destiny, my life, to what the judge said: A poem stands accused, my poem morphs into a crime. In the land of freedom, the artist’s fate is prison. Written on November 2, 2015, Jelemeh Prison, the day I received the indictment.
What love?
She wanted to be the next Jihadi martyr and openly incited others to do so.
Was denied that privilege, caught beforehand - now she writes about "love" from her cell in the jail.
Charles Manson wrote poetry as well...
It was her who posted "I want to be the next martyr", not Israel.
It was her who wrote "follow the caravans of martyrs", "resist the peaceful solution" - not Israel.
It was You, not Israel, who posted Palestinian videos of open calls to go murder Jews and go die together.
Incitement to illegal acts carries consequences.
No amount of "Jihadi love" poems are enough to hide the evident:That is what Israel says.What love?
She wanted to be the next Jihadi martyr and openly incited others to do so.
Was denied that privilege, caught beforehand - now she writes about "love" from her cell in the jail.
Charles Manson wrote poetry as well...
It was her who posted "I want to be the next martyr", not Israel.
It was her who wrote "follow the caravans of martyrs", "resist the peaceful solution" - not Israel.
It was You, not Israel, who posted Palestinian videos of open calls to go murder Jews and go die together.
Incitement to illegal acts carries consequences.
What did she say that is incitement?
(COMMENT)You are looking at this through Israel colored glasses. That is why your view is so distorted. My post also matches article 22 of the LoN Covenant.RE: Palestine Today
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,
There is no confusion on my part.
(COMMENT)How can you be so confused by simple language?RE: Palestine Today
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,
This is one of your greatest strategies. "Make it up as you go along."
(COMMENT)The title and rights went straight to the Palestinians. Britain never annexed or otherwise claimed the territory.in the capacity of the executor of the territories in which all title and rights had been renounced by the Ottoman Empire
Article 16 says nothing of the kind.
ARTICLE 16.
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.
That would be to the Allied Parties.
In that period of time, "Palestine" was the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies (AKA Palestine).
For the purposes of this Order and pending the introduction of an Order in Council regulating Palestinian citizenship, the following persons shall be deemed to be Palestinian citizens:--
(a)Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the date of commencement of this Order.
(b)All persons of other than Turkish nationality habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the said date, who shall within two calendar months of the said date make application for Palestinian citizenship in such form and before such officer as may be prescribed by the High Commissioner.
A "Palestinian" was --- whoever the Mandatory says. YOU don't get to choose.
Most Respectfully,
R
---------------------
Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:
“Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”
--------------------
And what state was that territory transferred to? Who got that citizenship?
--------------------
The automatic, ipso facto, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:
“Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”------------------
Where do you get confused?
You simply do not know what territory was transferred since the Treaty was not written to exclusively cover the Middle East.
Second, you totally ignore Article 16.
Third, you somehow believe that the Allied Powers would write a treaty, after the fact, that would invalidate what they had already done.
The Allied Powers wrote the treaty, they understood what the treaty meant and they wrote the treaty that would cover what they had already started. But the reality is, that no one is going to go backward in time and tell the Allied Powers that they were wrong in their interpretation of what they wrote.
Most Respectfully,
R
Why do you try to monkey motion around something so obvious?
No amount of "Jihadi love" poems are enough to hide the evident:That is what Israel says.What love?
She wanted to be the next Jihadi martyr and openly incited others to do so.
Was denied that privilege, caught beforehand - now she writes about "love" from her cell in the jail.
Charles Manson wrote poetry as well...
It was her who posted "I want to be the next martyr", not Israel.
It was her who wrote "follow the caravans of martyrs", "resist the peaceful solution" - not Israel.
It was You, not Israel, who posted Palestinian videos of open calls to go murder Jews and go die together.
Incitement to illegal acts carries consequences.
What did she say that is incitement?
You are looking at this through Israel colored glasses. That is why your view is so distorted. My post also matches article 22 of the LoN Covenant.RE: Palestine Today
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,
There is no confusion on my part.
(COMMENT)How can you be so confused by simple language?RE: Palestine Today
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,
This is one of your greatest strategies. "Make it up as you go along."
(COMMENT)The title and rights went straight to the Palestinians. Britain never annexed or otherwise claimed the territory.in the capacity of the executor of the territories in which all title and rights had been renounced by the Ottoman Empire
Article 16 says nothing of the kind.
ARTICLE 16.
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.
That would be to the Allied Parties.
In that period of time, "Palestine" was the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies (AKA Palestine).
For the purposes of this Order and pending the introduction of an Order in Council regulating Palestinian citizenship, the following persons shall be deemed to be Palestinian citizens:--
(a)Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the date of commencement of this Order.
(b)All persons of other than Turkish nationality habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the said date, who shall within two calendar months of the said date make application for Palestinian citizenship in such form and before such officer as may be prescribed by the High Commissioner.
A "Palestinian" was --- whoever the Mandatory says. YOU don't get to choose.
Most Respectfully,
R
---------------------
Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:
“Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”
--------------------
And what state was that territory transferred to? Who got that citizenship?
--------------------
The automatic, ipso facto, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:
“Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”------------------
Where do you get confused?
You simply do not know what territory was transferred since the Treaty was not written to exclusively cover the Middle East.
Second, you totally ignore Article 16.
Third, you somehow believe that the Allied Powers would write a treaty, after the fact, that would invalidate what they had already done.
The Allied Powers wrote the treaty, they understood what the treaty meant and they wrote the treaty that would cover what they had already started. But the reality is, that no one is going to go backward in time and tell the Allied Powers that they were wrong in their interpretation of what they wrote.
Most Respectfully,
R
Why do you try to monkey motion around something so obvious?
Those people had no sovereignty over that territory.RE: Palestine Today
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,
If it was so obvious, then why did the Allied Powers that wrote the covenant, do something so very different?
(COMMENT)You are looking at this through Israel colored glasses. That is why your view is so distorted. My post also matches article 22 of the LoN Covenant.RE: Palestine Today
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,
There is no confusion on my part.
(COMMENT)How can you be so confused by simple language?RE: Palestine Today
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,
This is one of your greatest strategies. "Make it up as you go along."
(COMMENT)The title and rights went straight to the Palestinians. Britain never annexed or otherwise claimed the territory.
Article 16 says nothing of the kind.
ARTICLE 16.
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.
That would be to the Allied Parties.
In that period of time, "Palestine" was the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies (AKA Palestine).
For the purposes of this Order and pending the introduction of an Order in Council regulating Palestinian citizenship, the following persons shall be deemed to be Palestinian citizens:--
(a)Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the date of commencement of this Order.
(b)All persons of other than Turkish nationality habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the said date, who shall within two calendar months of the said date make application for Palestinian citizenship in such form and before such officer as may be prescribed by the High Commissioner.
A "Palestinian" was --- whoever the Mandatory says. YOU don't get to choose.
Most Respectfully,
R
---------------------
Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:
“Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”
--------------------
And what state was that territory transferred to? Who got that citizenship?
--------------------
The automatic, ipso facto, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:
“Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”------------------
Where do you get confused?
You simply do not know what territory was transferred since the Treaty was not written to exclusively cover the Middle East.
Second, you totally ignore Article 16.
Third, you somehow believe that the Allied Powers would write a treaty, after the fact, that would invalidate what they had already done.
The Allied Powers wrote the treaty, they understood what the treaty meant and they wrote the treaty that would cover what they had already started. But the reality is, that no one is going to go backward in time and tell the Allied Powers that they were wrong in their interpretation of what they wrote.
Most Respectfully,
R
Why do you try to monkey motion around something so obvious?
The fact that they did something different is a demonstration of their original intent.
There were several reasons that the Allied Powers did something different. But the basic reason is that they had the intention to create a Jewish National Home.
Most Respectfully,
R
(COMMENT)Those people had no sovereignty over that territory.
RE: Palestine Today
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,
Yes, you are correct. They had effective control of a civil administration through a Mandate after the parties to a Treaty of Peace (AKA The Allied Powers) came into possession of the Rights and Title to the territory (one of many territories) renounced by the Turkish Republic. (Article 16)
(COMMENT)Those people had no sovereignty over that territory.
Your argument all along has been that the Allied Powers did NOT have the authority over the territory. → AND → You have consistently argued that Article 30 (Nationality) is overriding Article 16 (Territory). → AND → Your position is that the people formerly under the effective control of the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) (emphasis on the word "Enemy") somehow came into a superior authority, after hostilities ended, in comparison to that of the victors over the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republics.
My argumentative is in direct opposition. I take the position: In that historical time period, the Allied Powers won the war and became the decision making power and authority.
No matter how many witnesses you bring forth that sheds alligator tears frequently or readily over the history of the Arab Palestinians in the last century, the facts are, that what happened to support the idea that the Allied Powers had every intent and every authority to do what they did; and as authors of both the intent and authority, they had the right to the meaning of the international agreements.
Most Respectfully,
R
