Palestine Today

[Shusha]

Good morning my friends --
Apartheid in occupied Palestine!

Apartheid US

 

[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.

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.

With regard to nationality of the inhabitants of mandated territories, in general, the Council of the League of Nations adopted the following resolution on 23 April 1923:

“(1) The status of the native inhabitants of a Mandated territory is distinct from that of the nationals of the Mandatory Power....
(2) The native inhabitants of a Mandated territory are not invested with the nationality of the Mandatory Power by means of the protection extended to them…”92​

Yes. This is not in dispute.

What IS in dispute is:

1. That this distinction of citizenship creates a State (it does not).
2. That this distinction of citizenship transfers territory to a State (it does not).

All this distinction of citizenship does is determine that the inhabitants (and immigrants) are neither Turkish subjects nor British subjects. They are a distinct group. But, like the Mandate itself, it is only an intermediary step. Why? Because the government responsible for the subjects was the Mandate of Palestine, as established and run by the British trustees.

They were not self-governing and did not fulfill the requirements for Statehood.

 

[Shusha]

There is no policy or system of segregation or discrimination based on race (or ethnicity) in Israel.

I have no business posting in this thread.
-

Given that your contribution to I/P is limited to vile, toxic antisemitism of both the secular and the religious sort and you seem to have neither interest nor information concerning the issues involved, I would tend to agree.

If you wish to continue to champion the genocide and disappearance of the Jewish people, there are other places on the internet which would be happy to accommodate you, I'm sure.

 

[rylah]

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.

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.

With regard to nationality of the inhabitants of mandated territories, in general, the Council of the League of Nations adopted the following resolution on 23 April 1923:

“(1) The status of the native inhabitants of a Mandated territory is distinct from that of the nationals of the Mandatory Power....
(2) The native inhabitants of a Mandated territory are not invested with the nationality of the Mandatory Power by means of the protection extended to them…”92​

Yes. This is not in dispute.

What IS in dispute is:

1. That this distinction of citizenship creates a State (it does not).
2. That this distinction of citizenship transfers territory to a State (it does not).

All this distinction of citizenship does is determine that the inhabitants (and immigrants) are neither Turkish subjects nor British subjects. They are a distinct group. But, like the Mandate itself, it is only an intermediary step. Why? Because the government responsible for the subjects was the Mandate of Palestine, as established and run by the British trustees.

They were not self-governing and did not fulfill the requirements for Statehood.

Do I understand this correctly - personal citizenship ≠ national sovereignty?

 

[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.

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.

With regard to nationality of the inhabitants of mandated territories, in general, the Council of the League of Nations adopted the following resolution on 23 April 1923:

“(1) The status of the native inhabitants of a Mandated territory is distinct from that of the nationals of the Mandatory Power....
(2) The native inhabitants of a Mandated territory are not invested with the nationality of the Mandatory Power by means of the protection extended to them…”92​

Yes. This is not in dispute.

What IS in dispute is:

1. That this distinction of citizenship creates a State (it does not).
2. That this distinction of citizenship transfers territory to a State (it does not).

All this distinction of citizenship does is determine that the inhabitants (and immigrants) are neither Turkish subjects nor British subjects. They are a distinct group. But, like the Mandate itself, it is only an intermediary step. Why? Because the government responsible for the subjects was the Mandate of Palestine, as established and run by the British trustees.

They were not self-governing and did not fulfill the requirements for Statehood.

Do I understand this correctly - personal citizenship ≠ national sovereignty?

Yes. I think you do.

Nationality or citizenship is a relationship between an individual and a sovereign, which typically entails both parties having certain obligations as well as privileges.

The question on the table is this: Between 1922 and 1948(or 1988), what sovereign had a legal relationship with the "citizens of the territory of Palestine"?

The answer, of course, is Britain, as trustee for the territory until such time as the territory was self-governed.

P F Tinmore is trying to argue that the "citizens of Palestine" had a relationship with a different entity, which he calls "State of Palestine". It simply isn't factual, because such a thing didn't exist. There was no such sovereign to have a relationship with.

 

[Mindful]

Congratulations to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas for just entering the 16th year of his 4-year term.

 

[watchingfromafar]

Nice try; GOYIM

Oh poor baby, are you resorting to calling me names?
-

 

[USAF 2023]

Nice try; GOYIM

Oh poor baby, are you resorting to calling me names?
-

Sorry, but the truth hurts. Its a legitimate word. What else would you call someone who would celebrate the thought of Jews being eliminated ?

 

[watchingfromafar]

Given that your contribution to I/P is limited to vile, toxic antisemitism

Bla, bla, bla and then one big fart [OOOOO]
Smell it now?
-

 

[watchingfromafar]

What else would you call someone who would celebrate the thought of Jews being eliminated ?

I don’t celebrate the death of anyone, period, no exceptions. And I have nothing against Jews; no, none, nada; zip.

There is one very big difference between being Jewish and being an IDF soldier who gets pleasure in shooting Palestinian children in the head.

Only one country on this planet tells its soldiers to assassinate children; care to guess which one that is-?

UN officials: Girl hit by IDF gunfire in UN school in Gaza
By Amos Harel, Haaretz Correspondent and AP
Tue., October 12, 2004 Tishrei 27, 5765
An 11-year-old Palestinian girl was shot in the stomach and critically wounded by Israel Defense Forces gunfire. IDF troops fired two shots, one of the shots hit a fifth-grade student at the school. Last month, a 10-year-old girl was killed by IDF gunfire while sitting at her desk at the same school.
Girl, 11, shot in Gaza school

-

 

[P F Tinmore]

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.

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.

With regard to nationality of the inhabitants of mandated territories, in general, the Council of the League of Nations adopted the following resolution on 23 April 1923:

“(1) The status of the native inhabitants of a Mandated territory is distinct from that of the nationals of the Mandatory Power....
(2) The native inhabitants of a Mandated territory are not invested with the nationality of the Mandatory Power by means of the protection extended to them…”92​

Yes. This is not in dispute.

What IS in dispute is:

1. That this distinction of citizenship creates a State (it does not).
2. That this distinction of citizenship transfers territory to a State (it does not).

All this distinction of citizenship does is determine that the inhabitants (and immigrants) are neither Turkish subjects nor British subjects. They are a distinct group. But, like the Mandate itself, it is only an intermediary step. Why? Because the government responsible for the subjects was the Mandate of Palestine, as established and run by the British trustees.

They were not self-governing and did not fulfill the requirements for Statehood.

Do I understand this correctly - personal citizenship ≠ national sovereignty?

Yes. I think you do.

Nationality or citizenship is a relationship between an individual and a sovereign, which typically entails both parties having certain obligations as well as privileges.

The question on the table is this: Between 1922 and 1948(or 1988), what sovereign had a legal relationship with the "citizens of the territory of Palestine"?

The answer, of course, is Britain, as trustee for the territory until such time as the territory was self-governed.

P F Tinmore is trying to argue that the "citizens of Palestine" had a relationship with a different entity, which he calls "State of Palestine". It simply isn't factual, because such a thing didn't exist. There was no such sovereign to have a relationship with.

Don't blame me. Argue with the documents.

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[Shusha]

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.

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.

With regard to nationality of the inhabitants of mandated territories, in general, the Council of the League of Nations adopted the following resolution on 23 April 1923:

“(1) The status of the native inhabitants of a Mandated territory is distinct from that of the nationals of the Mandatory Power....
(2) The native inhabitants of a Mandated territory are not invested with the nationality of the Mandatory Power by means of the protection extended to them…”92​

Yes. This is not in dispute.

What IS in dispute is:

1. That this distinction of citizenship creates a State (it does not).
2. That this distinction of citizenship transfers territory to a State (it does not).

All this distinction of citizenship does is determine that the inhabitants (and immigrants) are neither Turkish subjects nor British subjects. They are a distinct group. But, like the Mandate itself, it is only an intermediary step. Why? Because the government responsible for the subjects was the Mandate of Palestine, as established and run by the British trustees.

They were not self-governing and did not fulfill the requirements for Statehood.

Do I understand this correctly - personal citizenship ≠ national sovereignty?

Yes. I think you do.

Nationality or citizenship is a relationship between an individual and a sovereign, which typically entails both parties having certain obligations as well as privileges.

The question on the table is this: Between 1922 and 1948(or 1988), what sovereign had a legal relationship with the "citizens of the territory of Palestine"?

The answer, of course, is Britain, as trustee for the territory until such time as the territory was self-governed.

P F Tinmore is trying to argue that the "citizens of Palestine" had a relationship with a different entity, which he calls "State of Palestine". It simply isn't factual, because such a thing didn't exist. There was no such sovereign to have a relationship with.

Don't blame me. Argue with the documents.

List all the documents between 1922 and 1948 in which the State of Palestine is a signatory.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Israeli forces entered the Shuafat refugee camp on Wednesday, sealed off its entry and exit points, positioned snipers on rooftops and began demolishing 16 shops, affecting the livelihood of more than 60 families.

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[USAF 2023]

What else would you call someone who would celebrate the thought of Jews being eliminated ?

I don’t celebrate the death of anyone, period, no exceptions. And I have nothing against Jews; no, none, nada; zip.

There is one very big difference between being Jewish and being an IDF soldier who gets pleasure in shooting Palestinian children in the head.

Only one country on this planet tells its soldiers to assassinate children; care to guess which one that is-?

UN officials: Girl hit by IDF gunfire in UN school in Gaza
By Amos Harel, Haaretz Correspondent and AP
Tue., October 12, 2004 Tishrei 27, 5765
An 11-year-old Palestinian girl was shot in the stomach and critically wounded by Israel Defense Forces gunfire. IDF troops fired two shots, one of the shots hit a fifth-grade student at the school. Last month, a 10-year-old girl was killed by IDF gunfire while sitting at her desk at the same school.
Girl, 11, shot in Gaza school

-

Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel - Wikipedia




2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers - Wikipedia



Itamar massacre: Fogel family butchered while sleeping



Palestinian charged with rape and murder of Israeli teen Ori Ansbacher



Hamas official urges killing all Zionist Jews, praises ‘peaceful’ Gaza protests

ETC. ETC. ETC,

Thread where Israel tells its soldiers to assassinate children

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

Noor Harazeen, Gaza

 

[P F Tinmore]

Noor Harazeen, Gaza

Me and my amazing team ❤ covering the Great march of return..
Dear friends, you can watch my daily reports from Gaza on teleSUR and CGTN — with Hatem Selmy and Ahmed Hossine.