RE: The Debates
SUBTOPIC: Tinmore Circular Logic.
※→ P F Tinmore, el al,
PREFACE: While our friend "P F Tinmore" demands that the "Opposing View" show this, that, and the others, it does not hold the Arab Palestinians to the same standard.
.
The purpose of 25 FEB 48 Memorandum "A" (The Legal Meaning of the "Termination of the Mandate") is to explain that given, all things remaining equal, what the political landscape would look like after the withdrawal of the British Mandatory. The authors of the Memorandum had no Crystal Ball that would guide them on the political outcomes on the landscape → after their control was pulled from the equation.
a. Your lack of attention to detail and your necessity to make everything sound as if it were falling in favor of the habitual residence, has infected your ability to apply critical political thinking and logic.
b. And while it is true, that the Mandatories originated from the Allied Powers of Europe, "foreign control" is the incorrect framework to apply to them. The Mandatory for the territory to which the Mandate applied was assigned by the Principal Allied Powers for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, within such boundaries as may be fixed by these same powers.
c. The "Rights and Title" to these territories were relinquished to the Allied Powers by treaty. To the extent to which the term "foreign" should be applied, the "British Mandatory" was no more foreign than the "Arab Palestinian." Before there were "Arab Palestinians" - the proper nomenclature was: "Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine."
These concepts are important when reading and complying with Articles 5, 8, 9, and 10 of the Mandate for Palestine. In each case, it encompasses the term "foreign or foreigner." And it did not point to the British Mandatory as a foreign power.
(COMMENT)
The general Action is found in Paragraph 1 of Part 1 to the Citizenship Order in Council.
The specific Authority is found in Paragraph 4(1c) of Part II of the Order.
(COMMENT)
You will not find a single UN Document anywhere that indicates the UN divided anything. I think you have mistaken the individual Armistice Agreement for some sort of UN Political Sub-Divisions. They are not. They are military agreements:
The UN can neither establish a new government nor invent a new governing authority beyond the powers of the Trusteeship System.
(COMMENT)
Well, the original territories were recommended in Part II Section "B" - Boundaries A/RES/181 (II). However, there was a forced abrogation when the Arab League Intervened. This intervention lead to the Armistice Agreements, which in turn was key to the Armistice being broken in the Six-Day War, which in turn led to the Treaties. In the case of the West Bank and Jerusalem, there was the abandonment of 1988 and then the Jordan-Israeli Peace Treaty (1994) •
agreement on Article 3 - International Boundaries.
(COMMENT)
This is a matter of semantics. You are intentionally misinterpreting the phrase. OK, let us set the record straight and the Protocol. Everyone agrees the Mandate is not an acquisition of territory. The phrase is intended to mean:
I know we all would rather you proceed with your losing argument as opposed to attempting to derail it. I know we have gone through these very same arguments several times before. And I know we have established these very same understandings.
All the best in the New Year to Come.
.
Most Respectfully,
R
SUBTOPIC: Tinmore Circular Logic.
※→ P F Tinmore, el al,
PREFACE: While our friend "P F Tinmore" demands that the "Opposing View" show this, that, and the others, it does not hold the Arab Palestinians to the same standard.
(COMMENT)
.
The purpose of 25 FEB 48 Memorandum "A" (The Legal Meaning of the "Termination of the Mandate") is to explain that given, all things remaining equal, what the political landscape would look like after the withdrawal of the British Mandatory. The authors of the Memorandum had no Crystal Ball that would guide them on the political outcomes on the landscape → after their control was pulled from the equation.
a. Your lack of attention to detail and your necessity to make everything sound as if it were falling in favor of the habitual residence, has infected your ability to apply critical political thinking and logic.
b. And while it is true, that the Mandatories originated from the Allied Powers of Europe, "foreign control" is the incorrect framework to apply to them. The Mandatory for the territory to which the Mandate applied was assigned by the Principal Allied Powers for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, within such boundaries as may be fixed by these same powers.
c. The "Rights and Title" to these territories were relinquished to the Allied Powers by treaty. To the extent to which the term "foreign" should be applied, the "British Mandatory" was no more foreign than the "Arab Palestinian." Before there were "Arab Palestinians" - the proper nomenclature was: "Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine."
Key Concepts:
◈ Turkish Subjects (NOT Palestinians)
◈ Habitual Residents (NOT Palestinians
◈ The Territory of Palestine (NOT a self-governing institution by Palestinians)
◈ The Principal Allied Powers selected the British as the Mandatory for Territory of Palestine. This was approved League of Nations in the form of the "Palestine Order in Council."
These concepts are important when reading and complying with Articles 5, 8, 9, and 10 of the Mandate for Palestine. In each case, it encompasses the term "foreign or foreigner." And it did not point to the British Mandatory as a foreign power.
(COMMENT)
The general Action is found in Paragraph 1 of Part 1 to the Citizenship Order in Council.
The specific Authority is found in Paragraph 4(1c) of Part II of the Order.
(COMMENT)
You will not find a single UN Document anywhere that indicates the UN divided anything. I think you have mistaken the individual Armistice Agreement for some sort of UN Political Sub-Divisions. They are not. They are military agreements:
◈ S/1264/Corr.1 23 February 1949 ARMISTICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN EGYPT AND ISRAEL 24 February 1949 at Rhodes
◈ S/1296 23 March 1949 ARMISTICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN LEBANON AND ISRAEL 23 March 1949 at Ras En Naqura
◈ S/1302/Rev.1 3 April 1949 ARMISTICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN JORDAN AND ISRAEL 3 April 1949, at Rhodes
◈ S/1353 20 July 1949 ARMISTICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN ISRAEL AND SYRIA 20 July 1949 Hill 232, near Mahanayim
The UN can neither establish a new government nor invent a new governing authority beyond the powers of the Trusteeship System.
(COMMENT)
Well, the original territories were recommended in Part II Section "B" - Boundaries A/RES/181 (II). However, there was a forced abrogation when the Arab League Intervened. This intervention lead to the Armistice Agreements, which in turn was key to the Armistice being broken in the Six-Day War, which in turn led to the Treaties. In the case of the West Bank and Jerusalem, there was the abandonment of 1988 and then the Jordan-Israeli Peace Treaty (1994) •
agreement on Article 3 - International Boundaries.
(COMMENT)
This is a matter of semantics. You are intentionally misinterpreting the phrase. OK, let us set the record straight and the Protocol. Everyone agrees the Mandate is not an acquisition of territory. The phrase is intended to mean:
Part I
Preliminaries
Preliminaries
Title:
1. This Order may be cited as the "Palestine Order In Council, 1922."
2. The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.
I know we all would rather you proceed with your losing argument as opposed to attempting to derail it. I know we have gone through these very same arguments several times before. And I know we have established these very same understandings.
All the best in the New Year to Come.
.
Most Respectfully,
R
