Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Border

[Sixties Fan]

Report: Hamas preparing for Israeli operation despite ceasefire

 

[Sixties Fan]

Report: Hamas preparing for Israeli operation despite ceasefire

 

[Sixties Fan]

[ Daddy Iran is willing to pay its children to die ]

Ma'an reports that the Hamas-linked committee in charge of the weekly riots at the Gaza border has announced that Iran plans to pay the families of anyone killed in the riots.

In addition, Iran says it will pay those injured, and also provide medical attention for them.

"Iran's adoption of the martyrs of the return and wounded marchers is an important step in supporting the steadfastness of the people and supporting the resistance in this way and in other ways," said Hussein Mansour, a member of the Coordinating Committee for the March of Return and Breaking the Siege.

(full article online )

Iran says it will pay all those injured and killed at Gaza riots ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

 

[Mindful]

A member of a UN Human Rights Council commission, which is investigating the events of recent months on the Israel-Gaza border, asked two Israelis living near the strip, “If that is the situation, why do you continue living there?”

Over the weekend, Batia Holin from Kibbutz Kfar Aza and Adele Raemer from Kibbutz Nirim accepted an invitation to speak in front of the UNHRC’s Independent Commission of Inquiry for events on the 2018 Gaza border and tell its members of life under the threat of arson terrorism and rocket fire.

The two said that despite being invited to speak in front of the UN commission in Geneva, they lowered their expectations, knowing the United Nations’ pro-Palestinian bias.

They were still surprised, though, when after describing their life under the threat of rockets, tunnels, incendiary balloon and kites and the fires they cause, one of the commission’s members he asked them why they continued living close to the border.

“When I was asked why I was staying in my home and not leaving because of the situation, I realized how disconnected from reality the members of the commissions are,” Holin told Ynet.


“I told them about our lives under the rocket threat, about the tunnels that were found, about the tire smoke that suffocates us from the protests every Friday. The commission members don’t know Israel or the Gaza Strip. They’ve never visited here. I had to show them on a map how close my kibbutz is to the border and explain what that means,” she went on to say.

Can you imagine anyone in the UNHRC commission asking a Gazan “If that is the situation, why do you continue living there?”

The UNHRC In a Nutshell

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Border
⁜→ Mindful, et al,

I agree. The Commission of the UN Human Rights Council appears to be just a game to them. They certainly are not equipped, intellectually, to tackle the problem.

A member of a UN Human Rights Council commission, which is investigating the events of recent months on the Israel-Gaza border, asked two Israelis living near the strip, “If that is the situation, why do you continue living there?”
...
The UNHRC In a Nutshell

(COMMENT)

I'm not sure if the commission has members and staff that have any competency on how to investigate a Human Rights issue.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Sixties Fan]

Submission to the UN Commission of Inquiry on the 2018 Gaza Protests

 

[Sixties Fan]

The two said that despite being invited to speak in front of the UN commission in Geneva, they lowered their expectations, knowing the United Nations' pro-Palestinian bias.

They were still surprised, though, when after describing their life under the threat of rockets, tunnels, incendiary balloon and kites and the fires they cause, one of the commission's members he asked them why they continued living close to the border.

"When I was asked why I was staying in my home and not leaving because of the situation, I realized how disconnected from reality the members of the commissions are," Holin told Ynet. "They have no idea how we live here and what the Zionist idea is all about."

"We got to the commission with a presentation and a lot of material to demonstrate to the team there, which is headed by a jurist, what our life on the Gaza border looks like. We were supposed to each appear separately for an hour and a half, but we ended up speaking for four hours," Holin continued.

"I told them about our lives under the rocket threat, about the tunnels that were found, about the tire smoke that suffocates us from the protests every Friday. The commission members don't know Israel or the Gaza Strip. They've never visited here. I had to show them on a map how close my kibbutz is to the border and explain what that means," she went on to say.

"They asked me: 'How do you explain the fact that on one Friday during the protests, the IDF killed dozens of Palestinians who came near the border fence?' I told them those protesters, who are sent by Hamas, wanted to infiltrate my home to hurt us—so we have the legitimacy to defend ourselves," Holin concluded.

(full article online)

UN representative to Israelis: Why do you keep living on Gaza border?

 

[P F Tinmore]

The two said that despite being invited to speak in front of the UN commission in Geneva, they lowered their expectations, knowing the United Nations' pro-Palestinian bias.

They were still surprised, though, when after describing their life under the threat of rockets, tunnels, incendiary balloon and kites and the fires they cause, one of the commission's members he asked them why they continued living close to the border.

"When I was asked why I was staying in my home and not leaving because of the situation, I realized how disconnected from reality the members of the commissions are," Holin told Ynet. "They have no idea how we live here and what the Zionist idea is all about."

"We got to the commission with a presentation and a lot of material to demonstrate to the team there, which is headed by a jurist, what our life on the Gaza border looks like. We were supposed to each appear separately for an hour and a half, but we ended up speaking for four hours," Holin continued.

"I told them about our lives under the rocket threat, about the tunnels that were found, about the tire smoke that suffocates us from the protests every Friday. The commission members don't know Israel or the Gaza Strip. They've never visited here. I had to show them on a map how close my kibbutz is to the border and explain what that means," she went on to say.

"They asked me: 'How do you explain the fact that on one Friday during the protests, the IDF killed dozens of Palestinians who came near the border fence?' I told them those protesters, who are sent by Hamas, wanted to infiltrate my home to hurt us—so we have the legitimacy to defend ourselves," Holin concluded.

(full article online)

UN representative to Israelis: Why do you keep living on Gaza border?

Israel can stop its war whenever it wants.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Border
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, what do we call this example?

It's not so much an example of a demand for an unattainable peace. It is what it implies and inferred from the lack of accomplishment or fulfillment. The idea that the lack of an end to the conflict demonstrates the opposite.

It is a fallacy is that contains a controversial and unjustified assumption that the end of hostilities rests with Israel. It has a complex assumption:

• That it is actually possible for a unilateral witdrawal; just pack-up and leave.
• That the departure of the Israelis will end hostilities.​

UN representative to Israelis: Why do you keep living on Gaza border?

Israel can stop its war whenever it wants.

(COMMENT)

This comment is absolutely wrong on some many levels.

There is an even further message buried in the comment that suggests the Israelis are solely responsible for the conflict. And that the hostility and violence is entirely Israel's fault.

Finally, the comment, if applied to the current border clashes, suggests that the Israeli (that suffers property damage from the Arab Palestinians) is at fault because their residence is too close to the Border.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Border
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, what do we call this example?

It's not so much an example of a demand for an unattainable peace. It is what it implies and inferred from the lack of accomplishment or fulfillment. The idea that the lack of an end to the conflict demonstrates the opposite.

It is a fallacy is that contains a controversial and unjustified assumption that the end of hostilities rests with Israel. It has a complex assumption:

• That it is actually possible for a unilateral witdrawal; just pack-up and leave.
• That the departure of the Israelis will end hostilities.​

UN representative to Israelis: Why do you keep living on Gaza border?

Israel can stop its war whenever it wants.

(COMMENT)

This comment is absolutely wrong on some many levels.

There is an even further message buried in the comment that suggests the Israelis are solely responsible for the conflict. And that the hostility and violence is entirely Israel's fault.

Finally, the comment, if applied to the current border clashes, suggests that the Israeli (that suffers property damage from the Arab Palestinians) is at fault because their residence is too close to the Border.

Most Respectfully,
R

Europeans went to Palestine, kicked out the natives, and set up shop. Israel has been attacking the Palestinians ever since.

Where is my comment wrong?

 

[toastman]

RE: Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Border
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, what do we call this example?

It's not so much an example of a demand for an unattainable peace. It is what it implies and inferred from the lack of accomplishment or fulfillment. The idea that the lack of an end to the conflict demonstrates the opposite.

It is a fallacy is that contains a controversial and unjustified assumption that the end of hostilities rests with Israel. It has a complex assumption:

• That it is actually possible for a unilateral witdrawal; just pack-up and leave.
• That the departure of the Israelis will end hostilities.​

UN representative to Israelis: Why do you keep living on Gaza border?

Israel can stop its war whenever it wants.

(COMMENT)

This comment is absolutely wrong on some many levels.

There is an even further message buried in the comment that suggests the Israelis are solely responsible for the conflict. And that the hostility and violence is entirely Israel's fault.

Finally, the comment, if applied to the current border clashes, suggests that the Israeli (that suffers property damage from the Arab Palestinians) is at fault because their residence is too close to the Border.

Most Respectfully,
R

Europeans went to Palestine, kicked out the natives, and set up shop. Israel has been attacking the Palestinians ever since.

Where is my comment wrong?

Why ISN`T your comment wrong?

Your so called `perception`of how things took place is completely false, and I`ve proved it dozens of times.

The Palestinians started the 1948 war, and lost. They then paid the price.

As for the current conflict between the Israelis and `Palestinians`, the Palestinians could have, and can still end the war whenever they want. But Hamas leaders and Palestinians leaders don`t want an end to the war.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Border
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, what do we call this example?

It's not so much an example of a demand for an unattainable peace. It is what it implies and inferred from the lack of accomplishment or fulfillment. The idea that the lack of an end to the conflict demonstrates the opposite.

It is a fallacy is that contains a controversial and unjustified assumption that the end of hostilities rests with Israel. It has a complex assumption:

• That it is actually possible for a unilateral witdrawal; just pack-up and leave.
• That the departure of the Israelis will end hostilities.​

UN representative to Israelis: Why do you keep living on Gaza border?

Israel can stop its war whenever it wants.

(COMMENT)

This comment is absolutely wrong on some many levels.

There is an even further message buried in the comment that suggests the Israelis are solely responsible for the conflict. And that the hostility and violence is entirely Israel's fault.

Finally, the comment, if applied to the current border clashes, suggests that the Israeli (that suffers property damage from the Arab Palestinians) is at fault because their residence is too close to the Border.

Most Respectfully,
R

Europeans went to Palestine, kicked out the natives, and set up shop. Israel has been attacking the Palestinians ever since.

Where is my comment wrong?

Why ISN`T your comment wrong?

Your so called `perception`of how things took place is completely false, and I`ve proved it dozens of times.

The Palestinians started the 1948 war, and lost. They then paid the price.

As for the current conflict between the Israelis and `Palestinians`, the Palestinians could have, and can still end the war whenever they want. But Hamas leaders and Palestinians leaders don`t want an end to the war.

 

[toastman]

RE: Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Border
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, what do we call this example?

It's not so much an example of a demand for an unattainable peace. It is what it implies and inferred from the lack of accomplishment or fulfillment. The idea that the lack of an end to the conflict demonstrates the opposite.

It is a fallacy is that contains a controversial and unjustified assumption that the end of hostilities rests with Israel. It has a complex assumption:

• That it is actually possible for a unilateral witdrawal; just pack-up and leave.
• That the departure of the Israelis will end hostilities.​

UN representative to Israelis: Why do you keep living on Gaza border?

Israel can stop its war whenever it wants.

(COMMENT)

This comment is absolutely wrong on some many levels.

There is an even further message buried in the comment that suggests the Israelis are solely responsible for the conflict. And that the hostility and violence is entirely Israel's fault.

Finally, the comment, if applied to the current border clashes, suggests that the Israeli (that suffers property damage from the Arab Palestinians) is at fault because their residence is too close to the Border.

Most Respectfully,
R

Europeans went to Palestine, kicked out the natives, and set up shop. Israel has been attacking the Palestinians ever since.

Where is my comment wrong?

Why ISN`T your comment wrong?

Your so called `perception`of how things took place is completely false, and I`ve proved it dozens of times.

The Palestinians started the 1948 war, and lost. They then paid the price.

As for the current conflict between the Israelis and `Palestinians`, the Palestinians could have, and can still end the war whenever they want. But Hamas leaders and Palestinians leaders don`t want an end to the war.

If I had the patience, I would go threw my old posts and show everyone here how many times I destroyed your arguments and your BS logic.

I beat you in every argument Tinmore, and you know I`m right

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Border
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, what do we call this example?

It's not so much an example of a demand for an unattainable peace. It is what it implies and inferred from the lack of accomplishment or fulfillment. The idea that the lack of an end to the conflict demonstrates the opposite.

It is a fallacy is that contains a controversial and unjustified assumption that the end of hostilities rests with Israel. It has a complex assumption:

• That it is actually possible for a unilateral witdrawal; just pack-up and leave.
• That the departure of the Israelis will end hostilities.​

Israel can stop its war whenever it wants.

(COMMENT)

This comment is absolutely wrong on some many levels.

There is an even further message buried in the comment that suggests the Israelis are solely responsible for the conflict. And that the hostility and violence is entirely Israel's fault.

Finally, the comment, if applied to the current border clashes, suggests that the Israeli (that suffers property damage from the Arab Palestinians) is at fault because their residence is too close to the Border.

Most Respectfully,
R

Europeans went to Palestine, kicked out the natives, and set up shop. Israel has been attacking the Palestinians ever since.

Where is my comment wrong?

Why ISN`T your comment wrong?

Your so called `perception`of how things took place is completely false, and I`ve proved it dozens of times.

The Palestinians started the 1948 war, and lost. They then paid the price.

As for the current conflict between the Israelis and `Palestinians`, the Palestinians could have, and can still end the war whenever they want. But Hamas leaders and Palestinians leaders don`t want an end to the war.

If I had the patience, I would go threw my old posts and show everyone here how many times I destroyed your arguments and your BS logic.

I beat you in every argument Tinmore, and you know I`m right

Pffft. You haven't done shit.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Border
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

This is a misrepresentation of the facts.

Europeans went to Palestine, kicked out the natives, and set up shop. Israel has been

Where is my comment wrong?

(COMMENT)

You attempt to make four (4) successive accusations here:

◈ Europeans went to Palestine,

The Jewish people were invited to Palestine at the invitation of both the Soveren, anf the Allied Powers after the Sovereign renounces all rights and title:

⟴ Since tthe time of the great expulsions in the 14th and 15th Centuries, Jews in the Ottoman Empire Jews within Europe, and elsewhere throughout the empire, particularly found the Middle Eastern Region to "provided a principle place of refuge for Jews → driven out of western Europe by massacres and persecution".

⟴ The Sultan Abdul Aziz (in 1870) invited a large Jewish Contingent (from Paris) to help educate Ottoman Citizen in improve agriculture technques. To this day, the Alliance Israelite Universelle has 13 Campuses through Israel.

⟴ In 1920, the San Remo Convention, the Allied Powers established the policy that they would facilitate Jewish immigration, in co-operation with the Jewish Agency, close settlement by Jews on the Territory to be administered by Mandate. During the period of the Madate (1922 - 1948) there was no policy or implemented action, by the Mandate Authority for the replacement of the Arab Palestinians with a Jewish population. The intent was to establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people. It was clearly the intent to secure the co-operation of all Jews who were willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish National Home.
​

◈ kicked out the natives,

⟴ There was an Arab-Palestinian revolt largely organized to resist British support for a Jewish National Home. This resulted in both British-Arab skirmishes as well as Jewish-Arab skirmishes throughout most the territory. There was little doubt that fighting was onging prior to 1946.

⟴ a full scale Jewish-Arab Civil War is generally considered to be the period 30 November 1947 – 14 May 1948 with the adoption of GA Resolution 181 (II) (1947). Not unlike most Civil Wars there are refugees. The Arab Palestinians act like Civil Wars don't have such a thing. In May '48, the refugee movement excelerated.

⟴ As the situation deteriorated, the Security Council called for a special session of the General Assembly, which then met from 16 April to 14 May 1948. At mid-night 14/15 May '48, the Mandate terminated and the Israelis Declared Independence. On 15 May the Arab League eneter the fray and crossed outside their country and forward to contact.

⟴ The movement of refugees had a number of reasons behind it, which is the topic of a number of best selling book.
​

◈ set up shop,

⟴ Here, once again, the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.

⟴ Declared independence in accordance with the "Steps Preparatory for Indepence." This is a matter of self-determination on the part of the Jewish People, to establish the Jewish National Home. It did not go off without a hitch as the Arab Palestinians and the Arab League were doing everything in there poweer, including the use of force.
​

◈ attacking the Palestinians ever since.

⟴ Since the Independence in 1948, Israel has consistanly defended itself (Article 51) from the resources of the Arab League, and the Hostile Arab Palestinians from:

✦ The threat of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Israel,
.............................................................OR
✦ The use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Israel.​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Border
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

This is a misrepresentation of the facts.

Europeans went to Palestine, kicked out the natives, and set up shop. Israel has been

Where is my comment wrong?

(COMMENT)

You attempt to make four (4) successive accusations here:

◈ Europeans went to Palestine,

The Jewish people were invited to Palestine at the invitation of both the Soveren, anf the Allied Powers after the Sovereign renounces all rights and title:

⟴ Since tthe time of the great expulsions in the 14th and 15th Centuries, Jews in the Ottoman Empire Jews within Europe, and elsewhere throughout the empire, particularly found the Middle Eastern Region to "provided a principle place of refuge for Jews → driven out of western Europe by massacres and persecution".

⟴ The Sultan Abdul Aziz (in 1870) invited a large Jewish Contingent (from Paris) to help educate Ottoman Citizen in improve agriculture technques. To this day, the Alliance Israelite Universelle has 13 Campuses through Israel.

⟴ In 1920, the San Remo Convention, the Allied Powers established the policy that they would facilitate Jewish immigration, in co-operation with the Jewish Agency, close settlement by Jews on the Territory to be administered by Mandate. During the period of the Madate (1922 - 1948) there was no policy or implemented action, by the Mandate Authority for the replacement of the Arab Palestinians with a Jewish population. The intent was to establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people. It was clearly the intent to secure the co-operation of all Jews who were willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish National Home.
​

◈ kicked out the natives,

⟴ There was an Arab-Palestinian revolt largely organized to resist British support for a Jewish National Home. This resulted in both British-Arab skirmishes as well as Jewish-Arab skirmishes throughout most the territory. There was little doubt that fighting was onging prior to 1946.

⟴ a full scale Jewish-Arab Civil War is generally considered to be the period 30 November 1947 – 14 May 1948 with the adoption of GA Resolution 181 (II) (1947). Not unlike most Civil Wars there are refugees. The Arab Palestinians act like Civil Wars don't have such a thing. In May '48, the refugee movement excelerated.

⟴ As the situation deteriorated, the Security Council called for a special session of the General Assembly, which then met from 16 April to 14 May 1948. At mid-night 14/15 May '48, the Mandate terminated and the Israelis Declared Independence. On 15 May the Arab League eneter the fray and crossed outside their country and forward to contact.

⟴ The movement of refugees had a number of reasons behind it, which is the topic of a number of best selling book.
​

◈ set up shop,

⟴ Here, once again, the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.

⟴ Declared independence in accordance with the "Steps Preparatory for Indepence." This is a matter of self-determination on the part of the Jewish People, to establish the Jewish National Home. It did not go off without a hitch as the Arab Palestinians and the Arab League were doing everything in there poweer, including the use of force.
​

◈ attacking the Palestinians ever since.

⟴ Since the Independence in 1948, Israel has consistanly defended itself (Article 51) from the resources of the Arab League, and the Hostile Arab Palestinians from:

✦ The threat of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Israel,
.............................................................OR
✦ The use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Israel.​

Most Respectfully,
R

Nothing here refutes my post.

The Mandate never had any sovereignty over Palestine.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Border
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you need to re-read the posting again. I never sad the Mandate had sovereignty. The Allied Powers (as a collective) were given the rights and title to the territory. They decided what was best. It was the Arab Palestinians, at the outset, that made a shambles of the territory.

Nothing here refutes my post.

The Mandate never had any sovereignty over Palestine.

(COMMENT)

Each line of your statement was answered. You don't see the answers because you do not want to see the answers.

And your first line above does not factually address a single point either your or I made.

And your second line addresses a subject matter, not at issue and not stated.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Border
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you need to re-read the posting again. I never sad the Mandate had sovereignty. The Allied Powers (as a collective) were given the rights and title to the territory. They decided what was best. It was the Arab Palestinians, at the outset, that made a shambles of the territory.

Nothing here refutes my post.

The Mandate never had any sovereignty over Palestine.

(COMMENT)

Each line of your statement was answered. You don't see the answers because you do not want to see the answers.

And your first line above does not factually address a single point either your or I made.

And your second line addresses a subject matter, not at issue and not stated.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Allied Powers (as a collective) were given the rights and title to the territory.

No they weren't.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Bord
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

The Allied Powers (as a collective) were given the rights and title to the territory.

No they weren't.

(COMMENT)

ARTICLE 16.

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.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.

You will notice that the Turkish Republic made it very clear.

Don't confuse Territorial Clauses with Nationality Clauses. I've seen any number of people make that mistake. And it should be remembered, the Treaty does NOT promise anything at all to the Arab Palestinians or any other inhabitance of the former Ottoman Empire. It is a Treaty between the representative of certain Allied Powers and the Turkish Republic. No one else is a party to the Treaty,

From the coming into force of the present Treaty, the state of peace will be definitely re-established between the British Empire, France, Italy, Japan, Greece, Roumania and the Serb-Croat-Slovene State of the one part, and Turkey of the other part, as well as between their respective nationals. Official relations will be resumed on both sides and, in the respective territories, diplomatic and consular representatives will receive, without prejudice to such agreements as may be concluded in the future, treatment in accordance with the general principles of international law.

Most Respectfully,
R​

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Bord
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

The Allied Powers (as a collective) were given the rights and title to the territory.

No they weren't.

(COMMENT)

ARTICLE 16.

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.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.

You will notice that the Turkish Republic made it very clear.

Don't confuse Territorial Clauses with Nationality Clauses. I've seen any number of people make that mistake. And it should be remembered, the Treaty does NOT promise anything at all to the Arab Palestinians or any other inhabitance of the former Ottoman Empire. It is a Treaty between the representative of certain Allied Powers and the Turkish Republic. No one else is a party to the Treaty,

From the coming into force of the present Treaty, the state of peace will be definitely re-established between the British Empire, France, Italy, Japan, Greece, Roumania and the Serb-Croat-Slovene State of the one part, and Turkey of the other part, as well as between their respective nationals. Official relations will be resumed on both sides and, in the respective territories, diplomatic and consular representatives will receive, without prejudice to such agreements as may be concluded in the future, treatment in accordance with the general principles of international law.

Most Respectfully,
R​

You post so much verbosity trying to pretzel this up. The basis of international law is that the people and their territory are not separated. Many other laws hinge on this basic principle.

The people who lived in Lebanon became citizens of Lebanon.

The people who lived in Syria became citizens if Syria.

The people who lived in Iraq became citizens of Iraq.

The people who lived in Jordan became citizens of Jordan.

The people who lived in Palestine became refugees.

Palestine is the odd man out.