Palestine Today

[P F Tinmore]

Sovereignty is in the hands of the people. Governments or states are not required. The Palestinians have never abandoned their territory.

Neither the Jewish Palestinians nor the Arab Palestinians have abandoned their territory. Hence the conflict between them.

And while its not strictly true that sovereignty is in the hands of the people, I agree, generally, with the concept. So, going back to your original question ("territory can be acquired by unilateral declaration?"), of course it can. The people, who hold sovereignty, unilaterally declare that sovereignty. They don't have it granted to them by others. They don't wait for others to recognize them. They simply declare it.

Israel did it in 1948. Palestine did it in 1988.

The Palestinians declared independence on its own land in 1948.

Israel declared independence on Palestinian land in 1948.

The only nation in 1948 that identified as, and legally vested with sovereignty
over all of "Palestinian land" was the Jewish Nation.

Loser Arabs, merely committed a post factum copyright infringement.
The whole charade runs on forging a false identity - and without it holds no water.

Here's another embarrassing example of Arabs exposing their own lies:
Mahmoud Abbas gifts the King of Saudi Arabia a framed "Palestine Post" newspaper
- not knowing it's a Jewish Zionist publication.

Links?

Of course not.

Did international law mention any Arab nation in reference to sovereignty over that territory,
other than the Jewish Nation?

Of course not.

The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the perspective of public international law. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British government pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine.”123 And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality.”124

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.”​

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.”​

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel

You're welcome.

 

[rylah]

Neither the Jewish Palestinians nor the Arab Palestinians have abandoned their territory. Hence the conflict between them.

And while its not strictly true that sovereignty is in the hands of the people, I agree, generally, with the concept. So, going back to your original question ("territory can be acquired by unilateral declaration?"), of course it can. The people, who hold sovereignty, unilaterally declare that sovereignty. They don't have it granted to them by others. They don't wait for others to recognize them. They simply declare it.

Israel did it in 1948. Palestine did it in 1988.

The Palestinians declared independence on its own land in 1948.

Israel declared independence on Palestinian land in 1948.

The only nation in 1948 that identified as, and legally vested with sovereignty
over all of "Palestinian land" was the Jewish Nation.

Loser Arabs, merely committed a post factum copyright infringement.
The whole charade runs on forging a false identity - and without it holds no water.

Here's another embarrassing example of Arabs exposing their own lies:
Mahmoud Abbas gifts the King of Saudi Arabia a framed "Palestine Post" newspaper
- not knowing it's a Jewish Zionist publication.

Links?

Of course not.

Did international law mention any Arab nation in reference to sovereignty over that territory,
other than the Jewish Nation?

Of course not.

The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the perspective of public international law. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British government pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine.”123 And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality.”124

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.”​

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.”​

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel

You're welcome.

That's 4 years after int. law allotted Palestine for sovereignty of the Jewish Nation.
And still no mention of any Arab nation in that reference.

Try again.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Palestinians declared independence on its own land in 1948.

Israel declared independence on Palestinian land in 1948.

The only nation in 1948 that identified as, and legally vested with sovereignty
over all of "Palestinian land" was the Jewish Nation.

Loser Arabs, merely committed a post factum copyright infringement.
The whole charade runs on forging a false identity - and without it holds no water.

Here's another embarrassing example of Arabs exposing their own lies:
Mahmoud Abbas gifts the King of Saudi Arabia a framed "Palestine Post" newspaper
- not knowing it's a Jewish Zionist publication.

Links?

Of course not.

Did international law mention any Arab nation in reference to sovereignty over that territory,
other than the Jewish Nation?

Of course not.

The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the perspective of public international law. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British government pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine.”123 And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality.”124

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.”​

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.”​

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel

You're welcome.

That's 4 years after int. law allotted Palestine for sovereignty of the Jewish Nation.
And still no mention of any Arab nation in that reference.

Try again.

And still no mention of any Arab nation in that reference.

Of course not. They were Palestinians.

The land was transferred to the state of Palestine. The people who lived there became Palestinian citizens.

Odd thing to do in a Jewish nation, what?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm not sure that this is not just plain intentionally false.

The land was transferred to the state of Palestine. The people who lived there became Palestinian citizens.

(COMMENT)

Who transferred what territory (and when) to the → Arab Palestinians?


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[rylah]

The only nation in 1948 that identified as, and legally vested with sovereignty
over all of "Palestinian land" was the Jewish Nation.

Loser Arabs, merely committed a post factum copyright infringement.
The whole charade runs on forging a false identity - and without it holds no water.

Here's another embarrassing example of Arabs exposing their own lies:
Mahmoud Abbas gifts the King of Saudi Arabia a framed "Palestine Post" newspaper
- not knowing it's a Jewish Zionist publication.

Links?

Of course not.

Did international law mention any Arab nation in reference to sovereignty over that territory,
other than the Jewish Nation?

Of course not.

The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the perspective of public international law. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British government pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine.”123 And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality.”124

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.”​

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.”​

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel

You're welcome.

That's 4 years after int. law allotted Palestine for sovereignty of the Jewish Nation.
And still no mention of any Arab nation in that reference.

Try again.

And still no mention of any Arab nation in that reference.

Of course not. They were Palestinians.

The land was transferred to the state of Palestine. The people who lived there became Palestinian citizens.

Odd thing to do in a Jewish nation, what?

Seems we agree,
there's no Arab sovereignty mentioned referring to Palestine in international law.

Then what does it mean regarding the legality of the demands for an Arab country,
inside the territory allotted solely for Jewish sovereignty?

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm not sure that this is not just plain intentionally false.

The land was transferred to the state of Palestine. The people who lived there became Palestinian citizens.

(COMMENT)

Who transferred what territory (and when) to the → Arab Palestinians?


Most Respectfully,
R

It's right in front of your face. How can you miss it?

Must be those Israel colored glasses.

 

[rylah]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm not sure that this is not just plain intentionally false.

The land was transferred to the state of Palestine. The people who lived there became Palestinian citizens.

(COMMENT)

Who transferred what territory (and when) to the → Arab Palestinians?


Most Respectfully,
R

It's right in front of your face. How can you miss it?

Must be those Israel colored glasses.

Funny how every time you bring up the same cut n' pastes,
but fail to point exactly how it supports the claim.

Must be that famous herd mentality that made Arabs so advanced and victorious...

 

[Shusha]

Of course not. They were Palestinians.

The land was transferred to the state of Palestine. The people who lived there became Palestinian citizens.

Odd thing to do in a Jewish nation, what?

No. No. No. The territory was NOT transferred to the (non-existent) "State of Palestine". You really do struggle with the most basic understanding of international law, don't you?

IF a territory is being transferred from one State to another State -- those two STATES would be the two PARTIES to the agreement. The wording would look something like this:

Turkey hereby renounces in favour of Palestine all rights and title to the following (territory) .... after which, the territory would be described. And the Parties to the agreement would have been Turkey and Palestine. They would have been named and would have been signatories. We KNOW that this is the correct wording because the Treaty of Lausanne, Article 15 reads: Turkey hereby renounces in favour of Italy all rights and title to the following (territory) ... Turkey and Italy are signatories to the agreement.

It is a blatant falsehood to claim that the territory was transferred from Turkey to the "State of Palestine" with the Treaty of Lausanne.

The WHOLE POINT of the Mandate system was to put in place a transitional government until the territories could develop government institutions of their own. If the State of Palestine already existed, and were capable of entering into agreements with other States, they would have done so. It didn't, they weren't, they didn't.

What actually happened with the Treaty of Lausanne is that Turkey abandoned the territory, and left it up to the other Parties to the agreement how the territory would be managed during the transition period and what the procedure for transfer would be. The Mandate documents then outlined the procedure for transferring the territory to the people for whom it was being held. Remember how you said that sovereignty was held by the people?

WHICH PEOPLE were the recipients of the development of government institutions in preparation for sovereignty? The Jewish people.

The Jewish people.


Now, you can argue all you like that this was unfair to a specific group of Arabs. You can argue all you want that the Arab Palestinians, along with the Jewish Palestinians and the Jordanian Palestinians, SHOULD have had the chance at self-determination and sovereignty and the development of self-governing institutions. (Though, let's be honest, its been a hundred years and they are BAD at it. Really, really bad at it.)

But continuing to put forward this blatant falsehood which your own source document clearly refutes is beyond ridiculous.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Of course not. They were Palestinians.

The land was transferred to the state of Palestine. The people who lived there became Palestinian citizens.

Odd thing to do in a Jewish nation, what?

No. No. No. The territory was NOT transferred to the (non-existent) "State of Palestine". You really do struggle with the most basic understanding of international law, don't you?

IF a territory is being transferred from one State to another State -- those two STATES would be the two PARTIES to the agreement. The wording would look something like this:

Turkey hereby renounces in favour of Palestine all rights and title to the following (territory) .... after which, the territory would be described. And the Parties to the agreement would have been Turkey and Palestine. They would have been named and would have been signatories. We KNOW that this is the correct wording because the Treaty of Lausanne, Article 15 reads: Turkey hereby renounces in favour of Italy all rights and title to the following (territory) ... Turkey and Italy are signatories to the agreement.

It is a blatant falsehood to claim that the territory was transferred from Turkey to the "State of Palestine" with the Treaty of Lausanne.

The WHOLE POINT of the Mandate system was to put in place a transitional government until the territories could develop government institutions of their own. If the State of Palestine already existed, and were capable of entering into agreements with other States, they would have done so. It didn't, they weren't, they didn't.

What actually happened with the Treaty of Lausanne is that Turkey abandoned the territory, and left it up to the other Parties to the agreement how the territory would be managed during the transition period and what the procedure for transfer would be. The Mandate documents then outlined the procedure for transferring the territory to the people for whom it was being held. Remember how you said that sovereignty was held by the people?

WHICH PEOPLE were the recipients of the development of government institutions in preparation for sovereignty? The Jewish people.

The Jewish people.


Now, you can argue all you like that this was unfair to a specific group of Arabs. You can argue all you want that the Arab Palestinians, along with the Jewish Palestinians and the Jordanian Palestinians, SHOULD have had the chance at self-determination and sovereignty and the development of self-governing institutions. (Though, let's be honest, its been a hundred years and they are BAD at it. Really, really bad at it.)

But continuing to put forward this blatant falsehood which your own source document clearly refutes is beyond ridiculous.

Holy cognitive dissonance, Batman!

You write a half page of balderdash trying to explain away what two short, simple articles clearly state.

 

[Shusha]

Holy cognitive dissonance, Batman!

You write a half page of balderdash trying to explain away what two short, simple articles clearly state.

I wouldn't have to write so much if you could demonstrate just a basic understanding of international law and, better yet, would stop posting blatant lies.

Here are the two relevant, short, simple articles with respect your false claim that the territory was transferred to the State of Palestine:

ARTICLE 15.

Turkey renounces in favour of Italy all rights and title over the following islands: Stampalia (Astrapalia), Rhodes (Rhodos), Calki (Kharki), Scarpanto, Casos (Casso), Piscopis (Tilos), Misiros (Nisyros), Calimnos (Kalymnos), Leros, Patmos, Lipsos (Lipso), Simi (Symi), and Cos (Kos), which are now occupied by Italy, and the islets dependent thereon, and also over the island of Castellorizzo.


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.

 

[toastman]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm not sure that this is not just plain intentionally false.

The land was transferred to the state of Palestine. The people who lived there became Palestinian citizens.

(COMMENT)

Who transferred what territory (and when) to the → Arab Palestinians?


Most Respectfully,
R

It's right in front of your face. How can you miss it?

Must be those Israel colored glasses.

So in other words, you don’t have an answer, as usual .

 

[Shusha]

And here is the relevant Article concerning citizenship:

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.



This DOES NOT say that Turkish subjects will become citizens of the State of Palestine. It says they will become nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred, according to the local law of that new State. The new State, to which the territory was transferred, was Israel.

 

[Shusha]

Now, if you want to discuss something interesting, let's talk about Article 32.

ARTICLE 32.

Persons over eighteen years of age, habitually resident in territory detached from Turkey in accordance with the present Treaty, and differing in race from the majority of the population of such territory shall, within two years from the coming into force of the present Treaty, be entitled to opt for the nationality of one of the States in which the majority of the population is of the same race as the person exercising the right to opt, subject to the consent of that State.



What I find interesting about this is the assumption of the time that people both wanted to and would be expected to live in a homogeneous population of their own ethnic background.

(Yes, I realize this is considered morally problematic to our modern sensibilities, but at the time, it was the expectation.)

 

[USAF 2023]

And here is the relevant Article concerning citizenship:

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.



This DOES NOT say that Turkish subjects will become citizens of the State of Palestine. It says they will become nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred, according to the local law of that new State. The new State, to which the territory was transferred was Israel.

Mandate for Palestine - Wikipedia





In Palestine, the Balfour Declaration's "national home for the Jewish people" was to be established alongside the Palestinian Arabs, who composed the vast majority of the local population; this requirement and others, however, would not apply to the separate Arab emirate to be established in Transjordan. The British controlled Palestine for almost three decades, overseeing a succession of protests, riots and revolts between the Jewish and Palestinian Arab communities. The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine was passed on 29 November 1947, envisaging the creation of separate Jewish and Arab states operating under economic union with Jerusalem transferred to UN trusteeship. Two weeks later, Colonial Secretary Arthur Creech Jones announced that the British Mandate would end on 15 May 1948. On the last day of the Mandate, the creation of the State of Israel was proclaimed and the 1948 Arab–Israeli War began.

The British did not control a Country; they controlled a Territory.

 

[Shusha]

P F Tinmore has a vision impairment which makes the Mandate for Palestine invisible to him.

 

[USAF 2023]

P F Tinmore has a vision impairment which makes the Mandate for Palestine invisible to him.

According to him the U.N did not declare Israel to be a Country.

 

[Shusha]

P F Tinmore has a vision impairment which makes the Mandate for Palestine invisible to him.

According to him the U.N did not declare Israel to be a Country.

Well, he's actually right about that. The UN does not have the legal capacity to declare new States or cause them to come into existence. (New States cause and declare that themselves). What the UN offers is recognition of new States in the form of acceptance of membership in the UN.

 

[P F Tinmore]

And here is the relevant Article concerning citizenship:

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.



This DOES NOT say that Turkish subjects will become citizens of the State of Palestine. It says they will become nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred, according to the local law of that new State. The new State, to which the territory was transferred, was Israel.

in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.

So, what state's local law gave its people citizenship?

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​

Hmmm, it seems it was Palestine. And that would mean that the territory was transferred to Palestine. And Palestine was called a state.

Where does your confusion come in?

 

[USAF 2023]

And here is the relevant Article concerning citizenship:

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.



This DOES NOT say that Turkish subjects will become citizens of the State of Palestine. It says they will become nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred, according to the local law of that new State. The new State, to which the territory was transferred, was Israel.

in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.

So, what state's local law gave its people citizenship?

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​

Hmmm, it seems it was Palestine. And that would mean that the territory was transferred to Palestine. And Palestine was called a state.

Where does your confusion come in?

Palestine was a Territory; not a Country . Where does your confusion come in?

 

[Shusha]

So, what state's local law gave its people citizenship?

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​

Hmmm, it seems it was Palestine. And that would mean that the territory was transferred to Palestine. And Palestine was called a state.

No one is disputing that the territory was labelled "Palestine" by the relevant Parties of the time.

The fact that the territory was labelled "Palestine" does not in any way transfer territory from one sovereign (State) to another sovereign (State). The fact that the territory was labelled "Palestine" does not in any way bring a State into being.

The territory of "Palestine" was a territory under control of the Mandate. As such, the citizens of Palestine were citizens of the Mandate for Palestine. This was true until they met the requirements for forming a State and declared independence. 1948 for the Jewish Palestinian people and 1988 for the Arab Palestinian people.