Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.

[P F Tinmore]

Should there be a " Palestinian State?"

In Plain Language: Do the Palestinians deserve a state?



Amnesty’s US director: Israel shouldn’t exist ‘as a state for the Jewish people’

Who is this " amnesty us director" that he can read the minds of the Jews in the US and decide HE doesn't believe them?? He clams Israel should exist as " a safe Jewish Space" and its a place that the Jewish people can call " home?" And pray tell. who would be in charge of ANY JEWISH IMMIGRATION POLICIES? THE PALESTINIANS OF COURSE ! lol

There already is.

Next question.

 

[USAF 2023]

There already is.

Next question.

What are their “ boundaries? So there should be a “ Palestinian State” with No Israelis allowed next to a Non Jewish State ( Israel) where they in time the Palestinians can be the majority with the Israelis having no voice in Gov’t or Religious Freedom? Keep Dreaming .

 

[P F Tinmore]

And don't start with this phony-baloney argument that the Oslo Accords were illegal. There were numerous parties that observed the proceedings and understood the international law.

Funny, international law was not mentioned (avoided) in Oslo.

 

[P F Tinmore]

REMEMBER: The "formerly Turkish Subject habitually resident in the territory" were residing in the Occupied Enemy Territory under the joint administration of the British-French.

So?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Arab Palestinian showing its true colors by reneging on its agreement?
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I suspect none of the points I have ever made, no matter how much they resemble the ground truth, will sway you.

The people "identifying" themselves Arab Palestinians, never made one valid attempt to establish any self-governing institutions, frontiers or a nation that did not mimic a process that the Jewish/Israeli people had not already taken. The Arab Palestinians rejected every offer to include them into the nation building processes.

So?

(COMMENT)

Wow, every little point needs to be explained.

The point was that: The Israelis did not take anything away from, what later became known as Arab Palestinians. The Arab Palestinians are either:

◈ "formerly Turkish Subjects habitually resident in the territory"​

- OR -​

◈ "formerly citizens of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan"​

Funny, international law was not mentioned (avoided) in Oslo.

(COMMENT)

The outside observers where on hand and as witness to watch-out for the Arab Palestinian Interest.

Anytime an agreement is made such as this, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) comes into play. And by implication - International Law is inferred.

Article 2 • Use of terms​

1. For the purposes of the present Convention:​

​

(a) “treaty” means an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation;​

I don't even understand why you mentioned this.

So it is written,

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

◈ What were the civil and political rights that are demanded by laws.How do you know that the "formerly Turkish Subject habitually resident in the territory" were denied something?

Here is where you ignore actual history.

The Allied Powers decided to create independent states in the territory broken off of the defunct Ottoman Empire. They also decided not to annex or otherwise claim sovereignty of the new states. They defined the territories by establishing international borders for the new states.

The Treaty of Lausanne transferred the territory to the respective new states and stipulated that the inhabitants would have the nationality of their state. In Palestine, the Palestine Citizenship order granted Palestinian citizenship to all Palestinians.

Palestine was recognized as a state by the League of Nations, the US, and several court findings.

So, here is a question for you to duck. What foreign power has the authority to change any of that?

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Arab Palestinians rejected every offer to include them into the nation building processes.

The Arab Palestinians rejected every offer to include them into the Jewish national home building processes.

There, I fixed it for you.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Holy Land Grab: The Battle for Jerusalem | Rewind​

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Arab Palestinian showing its true colors by reneging on its agreement?
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

(PREFACE) This entire response is screwed-up.

The Allied Powers decided to create independent states in the territory broken off of the defunct Ottoman Empire. They also decided not to annex or otherwise claim sovereignty of the new states. They defined the territories by establishing international borders for the new states.

(COMMENT)

The Allied Powers made certain decisions. But they did not decide how the entirety of the former Ottoman/Turkish Republic would unfold.

In fact, when the establish the Administrative Government of Palestine, they did not at the time (1920) and (1922) exactly where the using Treaty #564 is the Franco-British Convention of 23 December 1920 (Article 8) to set the separation of French Administration and the British Administration. Previously we discussed this: (see Posting #631)
BUT! No matter what you invoke from yesterday year, the current agreements have overtaken all those relics documents.

The Treaty of Lausanne transferred the territory to the respective new states and stipulated that the inhabitants would have the nationality of their state. In Palestine, the Palestine Citizenship order granted Palestinian citizenship to all Palestinians.

(COMMENT)

Article 30 is about nationality. It does NOT transfer any territory. The applicable Article 16 is the renouncement by the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic.

Palestine was recognized as a state by the League of Nations, the US, and several court findings.

So, here is a question for you to duck. What foreign power has the authority to change any of that?

(COMMENT)

Damn, you do not read and comprehend very well. The League, Courts and other entities of import recognized that there was the "Government of Palestine" which's the British had setup under the authority of the Mandate. And Judgment #5 was just such a recognition. And the Court found the British libel for the debt because they setup the government.

The best explanation comes The UN Legal Counsel Office that says:

What you are trying to imply, and have been trying for several years, was that there is some authority our there someplace that created the State of Palestine. I will agree that something happened in December 2012, but its clear, it was an entity prior to that.

There is a mention in the UN Yearbook for the period 1947-1948

Just a response to some misinformation.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Hollie]

Here is where you ignore actual history.

The Allied Powers decided to create independent states in the territory broken off of the defunct Ottoman Empire. They also decided not to annex or otherwise claim sovereignty of the new states. They defined the territories by establishing international borders for the new states.

The Treaty of Lausanne transferred the territory to the respective new states and stipulated that the inhabitants would have the nationality of their state. In Palestine, the Palestine Citizenship order granted Palestinian citizenship to all Palestinians.

Palestine was recognized as a state by the League of Nations, the US, and several court findings.

So, here is a question for you to duck. What foreign power has the authority to change any of that?

Circling back to your invented version of history wherein the Treaty of Lausanne invented your invented “country of Pal’istan” while inventing “new states”, none of which exist.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Arab Palestinian showing its true colors by reneging on its agreement?
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

(PREFACE) This entire response is screwed-up.


(COMMENT)

The Allied Powers made certain decisions. But they did not decide how the entirety of the former Ottoman/Turkish Republic would unfold.

In fact, when the establish the Administrative Government of Palestine, they did not at the time (1920) and (1922) exactly where the using Treaty #564 is the Franco-British Convention of 23 December 1920 (Article 8) to set the separation of French Administration and the British Administration. Previously we discussed this: (see Posting #631)
BUT! No matter what you invoke from yesterday year, the current agreements have overtaken all those relics documents.

(COMMENT)

Article 30 is about nationality. It does NOT transfer any territory. The applicable Article 16 is the renouncement by the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic.


(COMMENT)

Damn, you do not read and comprehend very well. The League, Courts and other entities of import recognized that there was the "Government of Palestine" which's the British had setup under the authority of the Mandate. And Judgment #5 was just such a recognition. And the Court found the British libel for the debt because they setup the government.

The best explanation comes The UN Legal Counsel Office that says:

View attachment 616292
What you are trying to imply, and have been trying for several years, was that there is some authority our there someplace that created the State of Palestine. I will agree that something happened in December 2012, but its clear, it was an entity prior to that.

There is a mention in the UN Yearbook for the period 1947-1948

View attachment 616307​

Just a response to some misinformation.

Most Respectfully,
R

The predicted duck.

The UN is still pushing the never was to be two state solution.

What law states that the Palestinians must agree to a two state solution inside Palestine?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Damn, you do not read and comprehend very well. The League, Courts and other entities of import recognized that there was the "Government of Palestine" which's the British had setup under the authority of the Mandate.

The Mandate was not Palestine. It was not a place. It was an administration to work on the behalf of, and in the best interest of, the Palestinians.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Weaponizing Anti-Semitism: IHRA and Ending the Palestine Exception''​

 

[P F Tinmore]

Palestine - Jeremy Corbyn & Mustafa Barghouti in Conversation​

 

[P F Tinmore]

Article 30 is about nationality. It does NOT transfer any territory.

Article 16 released the territory from Ottoman sovereignty. Article 30 said where it went.

What am I missing?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Treaty of Lausanne
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

(PREFACE) I simply do not know how much more simple this might be explained.

Article 16 released the territory from Ottoman sovereignty. Article 30 said where it went.

What am I missing?

(COMMENT)

SECTION I TERRITORIAL CLAUSES.

ARTICLE 3.​

From the Mediterranean to the frontier of Persia, the frontier of Turkey is laid down as follows:​

(I ) With Syria:​

​

This Section of the treaty deals with all the major territorial issues. For the purposes of this discussion, the entirety of the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Jerusalem are all (roughly) contained within the former Independent Sanjak of Jerusalem, but Israel (as it is today) stretches across portions of the former Sanjaks called Beruit, Acre, Nablus, Jerusalem, and Maan. Israel had territorial frontiers with WWI era Lebanon, Syria (including present-day Jordan), the Hijaz, and Egypt. However, the treaty itself had implications over a range many times larger than the boundaries as may be fixed by Allied Powers.

SECTION II NATIONALITY.

The purpose of Article 30 was, to that extent possible, to eliminate the potential problems pertaining to refugees and stateless people that may arise. The people did not have to move, the people would just become nationals of the new sovereignty. Article 30 pertained to outcomes across the entirety of the former Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic. And what it made clear was that no matter how the vast territory was sliced, diced, and divided up, the people would assume the nationality of that covered in the resulting political subdivisions. But Article 30 did not transfer either the people or territory itself; only nationality.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Treaty of Lausanne
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

(PREFACE) I simply do not know how much more simple this might be explained.

View attachment 616639

(COMMENT)

SECTION I TERRITORIAL CLAUSES.

ARTICLE 3.​

From the Mediterranean to the frontier of Persia, the frontier of Turkey is laid down as follows:​

(I ) With Syria:​

View attachment 616651
​

This Section of the treaty deals with all the major territorial issues. For the purposes of this discussion, the entirety of the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Jerusalem are all (roughly) contained within the former Independent Sanjak of Jerusalem, but Israel (as it is today) stretches across portions of the former Sanjaks called Beruit, Acre, Nablus, Jerusalem, and Maan. Israel had territorial frontiers with WWI era Lebanon, Syria (including present-day Jordan), the Hijaz, and Egypt. However, the treaty itself had implications over a range many times larger than the boundaries as may be fixed by Allied Powers.

SECTION II NATIONALITY.

The purpose of Article 30 was, to that extent possible, to eliminate the potential problems pertaining to refugees and stateless people that may arise. The people did not have to move, the people would just become nationals of the new sovereignty. Article 30 pertained to outcomes across the entirety of the former Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic. And what it made clear was that no matter how the vast territory was sliced, diced, and divided up, the people would assume the nationality of that covered in the resulting political subdivisions. But Article 30 did not transfer either the people or territory itself; only nationality.

Most Respectfully,
R

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.

Of course the people and land did not "go" anywhere. It was a transfer of sovereignty from the Ottoman Empire to Palestine. And, of course, the people inside that defined territory are the sovereigns of that territory.

What part of that confuses you?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Palestine in a Nutshell | Ep02: Home Demolitions: Politics of Dispossession​

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Treaty of Lausanne
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

(PREFACE) Yes, I understand what you highlighted; but do you?

It was a transfer of sovereignty from the Ottoman Empire to Palestine.

(COMMENT)

Your interpretation is 100% Wrong.

◈ First, Article 30 tells how to handle nationality, not how territory is handled.​

​

◈ Second, nowhere does it mention a transfer of specific territory to any specific people; let alone - former Turkish Subject habitually resident in the territory.​

​

◈ Thirdly, The former Turkish Subjects who were habitual residents in the territory and formerly under the responsibility of the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA)(today's Arab Palestinians) were not a party to the treaty. The former Turkish Subjects who were habitual residents in the territory were not named as a beneficiary of any territory. Not were the former Turkish Subjects who were habitual residents in the territory the previous sovereign power over the territory.​

You can believe what you want. Nothing I can say will change your mind. The treaty and its interpretations can only be challenged by parties to the treaty.

The three principal obligations of the British Administration were defined in the Mandate for Palestine, as they were established by the Supreme Council of the Allied Powers at San Reno on 25 April 1920 (NOT the Treaty of Lausanne).

(i) the creation of conditions that would secure the establishment of the Jewish National Home (JNH); ​

​

(ii) the creation of conditions which would secure the. development of self-governing institutions; and ​

​

(iii) the safeguarding of the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants.​

The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.

I can only offer you the primary view, as the British interpreted the Mandate, is that the Mandate specifically mentions a JNH. The Mandate does NOT obligate the British Administration to establish an Arab nation or other self-governing institution, except for the Hashemite Emerati. Further, by 1923, in which a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be "brought into cooperation with the government."
The Arab leaders declined that offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people. And for more than a century, the policy of "non-cooperation" was to set the tone for Arab Palestinian peace efforts.

SO, we then go back to the initial three obligations set by the Supreme Council of the Allied Powers at San Reno on 25 April 1920:

(i) Jewish National Home (JNH); ​

​

(ii) development of self-governing institutions; ​

​

(iii) civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants.​

The Supreme Council of the Allied Powers did not set an objective, goal, or obligation to create another Arab self-governing institution. And even when the British Administrator tried to extend the olive branch, it was rejected.

(Ω∑)

Believe what you will. It has been characteristic of the Arab Palestinians to play the part of the victim since the conclusion of the Great War (well over) a century ago. I just cannot figure out how the Arab Palestinians expect to get any forward traction. Do they think their policies to date have worked well for them?

​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Uncle Bobbie's Presents: Marc Lamont Hill & Mitchell Plitnick "Except For Palestine" Book Launch​