Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.

[P F Tinmore]

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

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


(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

This leads back to a previously ducked question.

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?

BTW, San Remo was not a treaty.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Jeanne Trabulsi: The fight against Israeli propaganda in Virginia textbooks​

 

[P F Tinmore]

THE OCCUPATION OF THE AMERICAN MIND​

 

[P F Tinmore]

Yousef Munayyer, Nayyera Haq on MSNBC on Tlaib, Omar, Israel/Palestine​

 

[P F Tinmore]

Lessons from Palestine: Policing, Prisons, Surveillance and Resistance​

 

[P F Tinmore]

Israel’s Continuing Policy of Palestinian Dispossession: From Sheikh Jarrah to Al-Naqab​

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Practical Dimension of The Struggle for Equality by Palestinian Citizens in Israel​

 

[P F Tinmore]

Israeli Apartheid, the Supreme Court, and Land Confiscation: The Case of Masafer Yatta​

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Defective Question: "Authority" and "Foreign Powers"
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Apology: I apologize for taking so long t get back to you on this question of "Authority" and "Foreign Powers."

The Amphiboly: The introduction of a "foreign power" - "authority" - "nature and complexion" of the formulation of certain agreements.

Let us dispense with the question of a treaty...



Under Treaty Law (Vienna 1969), a "Treaty" is defined as an accordance with the four characteristics.



◈ An international agreement.

◈ Concluded between States.

◈ Written form.

◈ Governed by international law.

The San Remo Convention, as well as the Oslo Accords, meet these criteria. You may not like it, but that is one component of the "amphigory" that is so often twisted by propaganda, that it is not recognized. Up and until the Exchange of Letters on Israel-PLO Mutual Recognition (1993) in connection with the Oslo Accords, there was no mutual recognition between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO - sole legitimate representative).

So, we clean this up as a non-issue (the status of the San Remo Convention). The San Remo Convention is made (essentially) in the same fashion as the 9 core international human rights instruments or the 19 international legal instruments to prevent terrorist acts (just to name a few).
As for the meat if the Ambiguity, we must look at the intent of the Allied Powers in the early 1920s, when the power was established. You will note, very clearly, that the victors of the Great War (WWI) begin the opening of the Preamble to the Mandate with the statement: "Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed."

But as the victors, no one at that time had questioned the "authority" of the Supreme Council of the Allied Powers."

There is a mistake in the facts here:

◈ Palestine was a recognized as a territory, BUT NOT as a self-governing institution.

◈ Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the "territory of Palestine."

The Government of Palestine was the international umbrella under which the inhabitance, economy, liability, international travel, etc... could be assigned. Example (the one pro-Arab Palestinians try to use as proof:

A05 Mavrommatis Jerusalem Concessions

• Judgment of 26 March 1925 (including the text of the declaration of M. Altamira)​

In the first paragraph of the Judgement read in part:​

​

"the Permanent Court of International Justice a suit arising out of the alleged refusal on the part of the Government of Palestine and consequently a1sc on the part of His Britannic Majesty's Government"​

Pro-Palestinian factions try to use Judgment #5 as some sort of recognition of the "State" of Palestine. This is not the case at all. The Permanent Court of International Justice is merely stating that Briton has a liability. The Government of Palestine was, as of 26 March 1925, was not self-governing. The implication here that "the League of Nations, the US, and several court findings" represents some manner of recognition that the Arab Palestinians have some sort of special recognition as a state is simply incorrect. The Arab Palestinians refused to participate in the creation of self-governing institution. The British Government during the period 1922 thru 1948 Palestine was govern by the High Commissioner staff consisting exclusively of British officials.

I hope we can consider this question resolved. While technically, the British Civil Administration was supported by British Military Forces, they were not a true foreign force since the Arab Palestinians declined to accept self-government and abandon their potential for governance.

.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Let us dispense with the question of a treaty...

San Remo was not a land treaty. A land treaty defines the territory and creates borders. Nothing like that happened at San Remo.

The Allied Powers/Mandates never claimed sovereignty over the territories.

So then, who had sovereignty?

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Nakba & its Generational Impact on Palestinians: Memory, Identity, & a Future Rooted in Justice​

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Defective Question: "Authority" and "Foreign Powers"
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Apology: I apologize for taking so long t get back to you on this question of "Authority" and "Foreign Powers."

The Amphiboly: The introduction of a "foreign power" - "authority" - "nature and complexion" of the formulation of certain agreements.

Let us dispense with the question of a treaty...



Under Treaty Law (Vienna 1969), a "Treaty" is defined as an accordance with the four characteristics.



◈ An international agreement.

◈ Concluded between States.

◈ Written form.

◈ Governed by international law.

The San Remo Convention, as well as the Oslo Accords, meet these criteria. You may not like it, but that is one component of the "amphigory" that is so often twisted by propaganda, that it is not recognized. Up and until the Exchange of Letters on Israel-PLO Mutual Recognition (1993) in connection with the Oslo Accords, there was no mutual recognition between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO - sole legitimate representative).

So, we clean this up as a non-issue (the status of the San Remo Convention). The San Remo Convention is made (essentially) in the same fashion as the 9 core international human rights instruments or the 19 international legal instruments to prevent terrorist acts (just to name a few).
As for the meat if the Ambiguity, we must look at the intent of the Allied Powers in the early 1920s, when the power was established. You will note, very clearly, that the victors of the Great War (WWI) begin the opening of the Preamble to the Mandate with the statement: "Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed."

But as the victors, no one at that time had questioned the "authority" of the Supreme Council of the Allied Powers."

There is a mistake in the facts here:

◈ Palestine was a recognized as a territory, BUT NOT as a self-governing institution.

◈ Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the "territory of Palestine."

The Government of Palestine was the international umbrella under which the inhabitance, economy, liability, international travel, etc... could be assigned. Example (the one pro-Arab Palestinians try to use as proof:

A05 Mavrommatis Jerusalem Concessions

• Judgment of 26 March 1925 (including the text of the declaration of M. Altamira)​

In the first paragraph of the Judgement read in part:​

​

"the Permanent Court of International Justice a suit arising out of the alleged refusal on the part of the Government of Palestine and consequently a1sc on the part of His Britannic Majesty's Government"​

Pro-Palestinian factions try to use Judgment #5 as some sort of recognition of the "State" of Palestine. This is not the case at all. The Permanent Court of International Justice is merely stating that Briton has a liability. The Government of Palestine was, as of 26 March 1925, was not self-governing. The implication here that "the League of Nations, the US, and several court findings" represents some manner of recognition that the Arab Palestinians have some sort of special recognition as a state is simply incorrect. The Arab Palestinians refused to participate in the creation of self-governing institution. The British Government during the period 1922 thru 1948 Palestine was govern by the High Commissioner staff consisting exclusively of British officials.

I hope we can consider this question resolved. While technically, the British Civil Administration was supported by British Military Forces, they were not a true foreign force since the Arab Palestinians declined to accept self-government and abandon their potential for governance.

.

Most Respectfully,
R

◈ Concluded between States.

The San Remo Convention, as well as the Oslo Accords, meet these criteria.

So then, Oslo was an agreement between the state of Israel and the state of Palestine.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Defective Question: "Authority" and "Foreign Powers"
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: You are trying to make new law. A treaty is as it comes to be defined by law, in Article 2 of the Convention. It 9s universally recognized. Do NOT assume you can alter the agreed-upon convention. Now the terms of the agreement are spelled out in the body of the agreement.

San Remo was not a land treaty. A land treaty defines the territory and creates borders. Nothing like that happened at San Remo.

The Allied Powers/Mandates never claimed sovereignty over the territories.

So then, who had sovereignty?

(COMMENT)

The meaning of sovereignty has many facets to it. But ONE of the criteria is:

sovereignty Sovereignty as a principle of international law must be sharply distinguished from other related uses of the term: sovereignty in its internal aspects and political sovereignty. Sovereignty in its internal aspects is concerned with the identity of the bearer of supreme authority within a State.*​

In the case of the post-War terms set by the victors, represented by the Allied Power, established a Mandate. In the case of Palestine, the British Mandate was subject to oversight. It is stipulated in Article 24 of the Mandate, that:

ARTICLE 24:​

The Mandatory shall make to the Council of the League of Nations an annual report to the satisfaction of the Council as to the measures taken during the year to carry out the provisions of the mandate. Copies of all laws and regulations promulgated or issued during the year shall be communicated with the report.​

​

The question of "the bearer of supreme authority" sets the question of how this impacts the true "ruling authority" over the West Bank Territory. THUS, it is clear that the issue of sovereignty had not been resolved at the time of the Mandate termination. And the status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip were still considered the non-self-governing territory.

For the last century-plus, each time the Arab Palestinians were invited to help in the establishment of self-governing institutions they declined.

Footnote for SOURCE Material:

---

---

* Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law / John P. Grant and J. Craig Barker. -- 3rd ed.
© ˝ 2009 pgs 263/264 by Oxford University Press, Inc. Published by Oxford University Press, Inc. 198 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Defective Question: "Authority" and "Foreign Powers"
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

So then, Oslo was an agreement between the state of Israel and the state of Palestine.

(RESPONSE)

The Oslo Accords was a process overseen by the International Community. There was an exchange of letters concerning mutual recognition.

The Oslo Accords were an Agreement established between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

Masafer Yatta​

People live here: the 918 firing zone and threat of expulsion​

 

[P F Tinmore]

Launch of Israel/Palestine: In Search of the Rule of Law Conference Souvenir Brochure​

 

[P F Tinmore]

Beyond The Two-State Solution, by Jonathan Kuttab. Interactive webinar.​

 

[P F Tinmore]

Professor Abdel Takriti on Decolonising the Study of Palestine 71 Years after the Nakba​

 

[P F Tinmore]