Palestinian man shot at close range by Israeli forces in Hebron

[P F Tinmore]

Oh, and you have documentation of that assertion? And how does that carry through to today? The LoN had no authority to create a state: when did the Palestinians declare it, and who was their first PM or President ? What is their monetary unit?

The LoN did not create the state of Palestine. It merely determined that it was created by post war treaties.

Link?

The U.S. State Department Digest of International Law says that the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne provided for the application of the principles of state succession to the "A" Mandates. The Treaty of Versailles (1920) provisionally recognized the former Ottoman communities as independent nations. It also required Germany to recognize the disposition of the former Ottoman territories and to recognize the new states laid down within their boundaries. The Treaty of Lausanne required the newly created states that acquired the territory to pay annuities on the Ottoman public debt, and to assume responsibility for the administration of concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans. A dispute regarding the status of the territories was settled by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. It was decided that Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties. In its Judgment No. 5, The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, the Permanent Court of International Justice also decided that Palestine was responsible as the successor state for concessions granted by Ottoman authorities. The Courts of Palestine and Great Britain decided that title to the properties shown on the Ottoman Civil list had been ceded to the government of Palestine as an allied successor state.[16]

State of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

Lord Curzon on Palestine as a Class A Mandate: League of Nations said ‘Homeland for Jews’ not a Legal Claim on Territory

Published on March 18th, 2010Written by: Juan Cole

I posted Tuesday on the legal implications of the*League of Nations’ recognition of Palestine as a “Class A” Mandate, i.e. a former Ottoman territory nearly ready for national independence, to which the mandatory authority (i.e. Britain) was to lend ‘administrative assistance’ in its attainment of independence. I received some strange mail from fanatics afterward, insisting that the British Mandate of Palestine was not recognized as a Class A Mandate. A scholar also wrote me to point out that unlike the case with Iraq and Syria, the British brought the Balfour Declaration into the Mandate document. The latter is true, but not relevant to my point, since the League of Nations interpreted the language of the declaration differently than did the Zionists. Others complained that the map starts in the mid-1920s after the British had already hived off Transjordan. But so what? If Class A Mandates were almost ready for independence, why couldn’t some portion of them be granted independence first? The French also split the Mandate of Syria into two parts, Syria and Lebanon. What has that got to do with anything?

As for the language about a Jewish homeland, by that was not meant a territorial state on Palestinian land. Curzon is clear that although the Powers at the Versailles conferences after WW I recognized a Jewish connection to Palestine and the Balfour Declaration,“this was far from constituting anything in the nature of a legal claim . . .”*He also reports that the Powers said that “while Mr. Balfour’s Declaration had provided for the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine,*this was not the same thing as the reconstitution of Palestine as a Jewish National Home–an extension of the phrase for which there was no justification*. . .”As regards the Palestine Mandate, this Mandate also has passed through several revises. When it was first shown to the French Government it at once excited their vehement criticisms on the ground of its almost exclusively Zionist complexion and of the manner in which the interests and rights of the Arab majority (amounting to about nine-tenths of the population) were ignored. The Italian Government expressed similar apprehensions. It was felt that this would constitute a very serious, and possibly a fatal, objection when the Mandate came ultimately before the Council of the League. The Mandate, therefore, was largely rewritten, and finally received their assent. It was also considered by an Inter-Departmental Conference here, in which the Foreign Office, Board of Trade, War Office and India Office were represented, and which passed the final draft.In the course of these discussions strong objection was taken to a statement which had been inserted in the Preamble of the first draft to the following effect:— ” Recognising the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and the claim which this gives them to reconstitute Palestine as their National Home.”367 [4996]It was pointed out (1) that, while the Powers had unquestionably recognised the historical connection of the Jews with Palestine by their formal acceptance of the Balfour Declaration and their textual incorporation of it in the Turkish Peace Treaty drafted at San Remo, this was far from constituting anything in the nature of a legal claim, and that the use of such words might be, and was, indeed, certain to be, used as the basis of all sorts of political claims by the Zionists for the control of Palestinian administration in the future, and ;2) that, while Mr. Balfour’s Declaration had provided for the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, this was not the same thing as the reconstitution of Palestine as a Jewish National Home–an extension of the phrase for which there was no justification, and which was certain to be employed in the future as the basis for claims of the character to which I have referred. On the other hand, the Zionists pleaded for the insertion of some such phrase in the preamble, on the ground that it would make all the difference to the money that they aspired to raise in foreign, countries for the development of Palestine. Mr. Balfour, who interested himself keenly in their case, admitted, however, the force of the above contentions, and, on the eve of leaving for Geneva, suggested an alternative form of words which I am prepared to recommend.Paragraph 3 of the Preamble would then conclude as follows (vide the words italicised in the Draft-;” and whereas recognition lias thereby (i.e., by the Treaty of Sevres) been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine, and to the grounds for reconstituting their National Home in that country.”

Lord Curzon on Palestine as a Class A Mandate: League of Nations said ?Homeland for Jews? not a Legal Claim on Territory | Informed Comment

 

[MHunterB]

OIC - so you want to turn the clock back to 1920 now?

Somehow I don't think that's going to work.

I can see, though, that the 'issue' for both Tinny and that other poster is the fact that there IS a 'State of Israel' and that it's in the ME.

On that basis, every time an Israeli citizen draws breath, you lot are trying to claim it's "illegal" - and further insisting that because it's 'illegal' it must therefore be 'immoral' and so on until you arrive at the 'conclusion that "all persons of conscience" (what is usually referred to as 'all right-minded people') ought to oppose the existence of a State of Israel.

And when that bit of garbage "logic" fails to impress someone, you resort to invoking the multitude of false stereotypes used for millennia to attack Jewish Israelis and any supporters of Israel.

Things can get pretty messed up without any party involved having to be a villain. But you lot don't seem able to comprehend that. No, you pick up old shit that's been lying around for centuries and throw it at 'Israel'. It's really shit that was thrown at Jews, but since many people have abandoned the 'supremacism' aspect of Christianity, the putative Christians don't want to ascribe it to 'Judaism' a la Martin Luther, et al - so they just 're-purpose' the same stale filth for attacking 'Zionists'. They even deny the Christianity of their fellow Christians who refuse to join their lynch party.

I don't think there is ANY group who are completely 'on the side of the angels' - but neither do I have any tolerance for the 'it's all their fault' BS I keep reading from you lot.

While ANYONE is insisting that only one group has ever been at fault in this situation, they are choosing to be stupid - to put it mildly.

It is IMPOSSIBLE for me to hear the noises either of you make about 'human rights' while neither of you has ever once acknowledged that some of those whose rights were violated were so oppressed for NOT being Muslim.

Post all you like: your posts only continue to prove that you have not charity so you are merely clanging bells.

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

OIC - so you want to turn the clock back to 1920 now?

Somehow I don't think that's going to work.

I can see, though, that the 'issue' for both Tinny and that other poster is the fact that there IS a 'State of Israel' and that it's in the ME.

On that basis, every time an Israeli citizen draws breath, you lot are trying to claim it's "illegal" - and further insisting that because it's 'illegal' it must therefore be 'immoral' and so on until you arrive at the 'conclusion that "all persons of conscience" (what is usually referred to as 'all right-minded people') ought to oppose the existence of a State of Israel.

And when that bit of garbage "logic" fails to impress someone, you resort to invoking the multitude of false stereotypes used for millennia to attack Jewish Israelis and any supporters of Israel.

Things can get pretty messed up without any party involved having to be a villain. But you lot don't seem able to comprehend that. No, you pick up old shit that's been lying around for centuries and throw it at 'Israel'. It's really shit that was thrown at Jews, but since many people have abandoned the 'supremacism' aspect of Christianity, the putative Christians don't want to ascribe it to 'Judaism' a la Martin Luther, et al - so they just 're-purpose' the same stale filth for attacking 'Zionists'. They even deny the Christianity of their fellow Christians who refuse to join their lynch party.

I don't think there is ANY group who are completely 'on the side of the angels' - but neither do I have any tolerance for the 'it's all their fault' BS I keep reading from you lot.

While ANYONE is insisting that only one group has ever been at fault in this situation, they are choosing to be stupid - to put it mildly.

It is IMPOSSIBLE for me to hear the noises either of you make about 'human rights' while neither of you has ever once acknowledged that some of those whose rights were violated were so oppressed for NOT being Muslim.

Post all you like: your posts only continue to prove that you have not charity so you are merely clanging bells.

​

 

[irosie91]

A logical answer to turmoil in Hebron and Jerusalem would be---
TAKE A LESSON FROM MUSLIMS Jews recognize four "holy"
cities. Jerusalem, Hebron, Tiberias and Safed. -----muslims
recognize two----mecca and medina. Both mecca and medina
are COMPLETELY OFF LIMITS to non muslims------likewise---the
"holy" cities of Judaism-----Hebron, Jerusalem, Tiberias and Safed---
should be rendered COMPLTELY OFF LIMITS TO MUSLIMS

**** FAIR IS FAIR ******