The events in Jerusalem

[Sixties Fan]

Is everyone forgetting what this tragedy was in response to? Another tragedy which involved the loss of life in higher numbers.

Are you forgetting that zionists gunned down 29 Muslims as they worshiped in their mosque and that that is what led to the first intifada?

You brought up a specific incident in which an Arab teen was killed and made it sound like it just happened out of the blue, for no reason at all. Now, if you want to quit being disingenuous, and discuss other acts of terror, I can do that.

Like those rockets from Gaza just come out of a vacuum.

Those rockets come out of Iran and others who supply Gaza with what to build those rockets with.....to send into Israel.

No vacuum at all.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The events in Jerusalem
※→ abi, et al,

Where are you going with this?

But I do. You can pretend to defend the obviously wrong, but you can't.

(COMMENT)

I have not heard your charge in a coherent manner. So I cannot determine what you believe is wrong.

✪ Please tell me simply what the charge is:
✪ When the offense took place, the time period:
✪ What law (Statue or Code or Treaty) you think is violated:​

✪ The various levels of the land dispute...

✪ Calling this a land dispute is zionist propaganda. In 1948, Ben-Gurion declared independence for the zionists in Palestine. The zionist argument is as stupid as assuming that a Christian group from America could march an army into Mexico, place a flag on Mexican land and declare it as theirs. If anyone dared argue, they would ask why they don't have the same rights to self-determination as other peoples. Read any thread here you want. It's always the same crap. Or, we go to Palestine wasn't a real place. It does not matter how you label the territory as there were people there and:

The Palestinian Citizenship Order in Council, 1925[1][2][3] was a law of Mandatory Palestine governing the giving of citizenship to the population of the state. It was announced on 24 July 1925 and came into force on 1 August 1925....
Palestinian Citizenship Order, 1925 - Wikipedia

That was over two decades before Ben-Gurion began the Nakba.

(COMMENT)

The Palestine Citizenship Order has nothing to do with → "LAND OWNERSHIP" → "TERRITORIAL SOVEREIGNTY" → "SELF DETERMINATION" or "SOVEREIGN ACQUISITION." →→→

The Government of Palestine prior to May 1948 is the Mandate Administration; but is not a sovereign entity (ie Don't read to much into the meaning of "country."). [See MEMORANDUM “A” LEGAL MEANING OF THE “TERMINATION OF THE MANDATE” (25 February 1948)]

EXCEPTS:

2. After the 15th May, 1948, Palestine will continue to be a legal entity but it will still not be a sovereign state because it will not be immediately self-governing. The authority responsible for its administration will, however, have changed.

3. Where the sovereignty of Palestine lies at the present time in a disputed and perhaps academic legal question about which writers have expressed a number of different conclusions. Where the sovereignty of Palestine will lie after the 15th May, 1948; is perhaps also a question on which different views will be held but so far as His Majesty’s Government are aware, it is a question which it is unnecessary to answer in connection with any practical issues.

4. After the 15th May, 1948, the United Nations Commission will be the Government of Palestine. It does not seem very material whether it is considered to be the de facto or the de jure Government. In any case, its title to be the Government of Palestine will rest on the resolution of the General Assembly.

5. His Majesty’s Government will recognise the United Nations Commission as the authority with which to make an agreement regarding the transfer of the assets of the Government of Palestine.
​

Israel is now it's own self-governing and sovereign state; there is no question. BUT there is a huge question on where the sovereignty rest with respect to the West Bank and Gaza Strip. While the Palestinians might claim the Gaza Strip having been self-governing, only Area "A" can argue a claim it is self-governing.

So another question is, can a legal entity (the West Bank) actually claim to be a state is it never held sovereignty. The Palestinians could have claimed sovereignty if the Jordanians rendered the title to them. But that didn't happen because there was no organized activity to lend title to.

Most Respectfully,
R

5. His Majesty’s Government will recognise the United Nations Commission as the authority with which to make an agreement regarding the transfer of the assets of the Government of Palestine.

Britain was not giving away its assets, only those of the Palestinian government. And if the UN does not claim them, don't they revert to the citizens?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Is everyone forgetting what this tragedy was in response to? Another tragedy which involved the loss of life in higher numbers.

Are you forgetting that zionists gunned down 29 Muslims as they worshiped in their mosque and that that is what led to the first intifada?

You brought up a specific incident in which an Arab teen was killed and made it sound like it just happened out of the blue, for no reason at all. Now, if you want to quit being disingenuous, and discuss other acts of terror, I can do that.

Like those rockets from Gaza just come out of a vacuum.

Those rockets come out of Iran and others who supply Gaza with what to build those rockets with.....to send into Israel.

No vacuum at all.

Of course you miss the point.

 

[P F Tinmore]

This thread is less factual news and more updates on the happenings in Jerusalem following the events of last night and early morning.

As you may followed or not, I'll post things as I myself personally understood them: Early morning, around 4 am today, It was reported about a missing boy from Shuefat (Jerusalem), he was seen entering (willingly or by force, not sure on the details) to a white vehicle.

It's not sure who reported the boy missing, but facts are that he was found around 6 in the morning in Jerusalem forest.

In the car there were traces of DNA and his blood.

Some sources say that 3 Arabs were arrested the same morning, for suspicion of an 'inside crime', his family of Abu Hdeir is known in Jerusalem to have feuds with other Arab families in Jerusalem.

However, due to the facts that he was possibly kidnapped, for it's still unclear of what exactly happened, the Palestinians blame the Jews and settlers of 'crime of revenge' for killing the three boys, and Abu Mazen blamed Israel for killing the boy and demanded condemntion.

What some of the Arabs in Shuefat say, is a different story. Some say he was killed by his own family, which suspected he must be gay, and finished him of for "family honor". Officers in Israeli police claimed the murder was not for revenge, but for "other reasons".

Tzipi Livni condemned the murder on her facebook page, but quickly removed the condemntion, something which raised the eyebrow of many Israelis, who asked what does Livni know which caused her to take back the apology? Is it possible she was too quick to blame the settlers for doing something they might not have done?

This is up for the police to decide.

However, the events of the boy's death took a wild turn, and the police is not done investigating. In the riots following, 2 train stations were burned down by Arabs, and 2 female reporters were attacks, one female reporter from Walla! Israeli news network, and the other from YNET.

An Arab man, the protesters suspected was undercover cop was almost lynched to death, and it was only a miracle that things didn't end worse.

In addition, two pipe boms were planted next two the Jerusalemite trolley, but no one was hurt. Due to the still continues rioting, some Arab civilians were also attacked by Jewish residents in Jerusalem.

Officers and secutiry forces teams were attacked.

The United States now calles for its people not to approach the points of contention in the capital.

This is far as the events known.

Personally, I hope the case of the deceased boy is quickly solved, and the killers will br braught to justice, no matter who they are or what their reasons.

In hopes no one else gets hurt, for this is the last thing Israel needs.

Arabs kill their kids all the time. They don’t even care who did this, they just want an excuse to kill Jews.

They are part of a death cult. They care more about killing Jews than making good lives for their kids. They are a sick people.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

More proof that we need a stupid post button.

 

[Sixties Fan]

RE: The events in Jerusalem
※→ abi, et al,

Where are you going with this?

But I do. You can pretend to defend the obviously wrong, but you can't.

(COMMENT)

I have not heard your charge in a coherent manner. So I cannot determine what you believe is wrong.

✪ Please tell me simply what the charge is:
✪ When the offense took place, the time period:
✪ What law (Statue or Code or Treaty) you think is violated:​

✪ The various levels of the land dispute...

✪ Calling this a land dispute is zionist propaganda. In 1948, Ben-Gurion declared independence for the zionists in Palestine. The zionist argument is as stupid as assuming that a Christian group from America could march an army into Mexico, place a flag on Mexican land and declare it as theirs. If anyone dared argue, they would ask why they don't have the same rights to self-determination as other peoples. Read any thread here you want. It's always the same crap. Or, we go to Palestine wasn't a real place. It does not matter how you label the territory as there were people there and:

The Palestinian Citizenship Order in Council, 1925[1][2][3] was a law of Mandatory Palestine governing the giving of citizenship to the population of the state. It was announced on 24 July 1925 and came into force on 1 August 1925....
Palestinian Citizenship Order, 1925 - Wikipedia

That was over two decades before Ben-Gurion began the Nakba.

(COMMENT)

The Palestine Citizenship Order has nothing to do with → "LAND OWNERSHIP" → "TERRITORIAL SOVEREIGNTY" → "SELF DETERMINATION" or "SOVEREIGN ACQUISITION." →→→

The Government of Palestine prior to May 1948 is the Mandate Administration; but is not a sovereign entity (ie Don't read to much into the meaning of "country."). [See MEMORANDUM “A” LEGAL MEANING OF THE “TERMINATION OF THE MANDATE” (25 February 1948)]

EXCEPTS:

2. After the 15th May, 1948, Palestine will continue to be a legal entity but it will still not be a sovereign state because it will not be immediately self-governing. The authority responsible for its administration will, however, have changed.

3. Where the sovereignty of Palestine lies at the present time in a disputed and perhaps academic legal question about which writers have expressed a number of different conclusions. Where the sovereignty of Palestine will lie after the 15th May, 1948; is perhaps also a question on which different views will be held but so far as His Majesty’s Government are aware, it is a question which it is unnecessary to answer in connection with any practical issues.

4. After the 15th May, 1948, the United Nations Commission will be the Government of Palestine. It does not seem very material whether it is considered to be the de facto or the de jure Government. In any case, its title to be the Government of Palestine will rest on the resolution of the General Assembly.

5. His Majesty’s Government will recognise the United Nations Commission as the authority with which to make an agreement regarding the transfer of the assets of the Government of Palestine.
​

Israel is now it's own self-governing and sovereign state; there is no question. BUT there is a huge question on where the sovereignty rest with respect to the West Bank and Gaza Strip. While the Palestinians might claim the Gaza Strip having been self-governing, only Area "A" can argue a claim it is self-governing.

So another question is, can a legal entity (the West Bank) actually claim to be a state is it never held sovereignty. The Palestinians could have claimed sovereignty if the Jordanians rendered the title to them. But that didn't happen because there was no organized activity to lend title to.

Most Respectfully,
R

5. His Majesty’s Government will recognise the United Nations Commission as the authority with which to make an agreement regarding the transfer of the assets of the Government of Palestine.

Britain was not giving away its assets, only those of the Palestinian government. And if the UN does not claim them, don't they revert to the citizens?

You insist that there was a country called Palestine with a Palestinian government, when there was neither.

The REGION called Palestine was conquered by the Turks for 500 years. There never was an Arab Muslim or Christian government of any kind, before or after.

The Ottomans lost the WWI. They lost any land they had conquered to those who won the war.

Simple. Very simple.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The events in Jerusalem
※→ abi, et al,

OK, a very serious question...

How does that enter into the question of Palestine... Did you answer those simple questions.

I have over and over. Taking land in war is a war crime. Your 'logic' works only from neanderthal times until civilization finally became awake after WWII. Read the Nuremberg principles if you still don't get it.

(COMMENT)

When was Israel at War with the Arab Palestinians?

If you are taking about:

• The 1948 War of independence: The conflict was between Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt... And there were the four Armistice Agreements with these parties to the conflict; and there are currently two peace treaties, a letter agreement on the border with the Lebanese, and nothing with the Syrians yet.

• If you are talking about the 1967 Six Day War, same answer.

• If you are talking about the Sneak Attack in 1973 Yom Kipper War, and yes this is where the Egyptian Third Army was encircled. All those disputes are wiped clean now.​

Where were the Palestinians in all this... As usual, nowhere as a party to the conflict. NO one took any territory from the Palestinians. And the conflicts, that would have effected the West Bank and Gaza Strip, were settled by treaties with the Egyptians and Jordanians.

(FRAUDULENT CLAIM)

You cannot make the claim that the Israelis took anything from the Arab Palestinians in war. And you cannot piggyback on the Egyptians and Jordanians because Israel has settled the dispute on the loss to Israel of the Military Governorship over the Gaza Strip and the West Bank Annexed Territory by Jordan that was finally abandon into the hands of the Israelis.

Your claim is fraudulent and the Arab-Palestinian people should be made to pay reparations for the seven decade long temper tantrum they have, and continue with, in the pursuit of this frivolous allegation.

Most Respectfully.
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The events in Jerusalem
※→ abi, et al,

Where are you going with this?

But I do. You can pretend to defend the obviously wrong, but you can't.

(COMMENT)

I have not heard your charge in a coherent manner. So I cannot determine what you believe is wrong.

✪ Please tell me simply what the charge is:
✪ When the offense took place, the time period:
✪ What law (Statue or Code or Treaty) you think is violated:​

✪ The various levels of the land dispute...

✪ Calling this a land dispute is zionist propaganda. In 1948, Ben-Gurion declared independence for the zionists in Palestine. The zionist argument is as stupid as assuming that a Christian group from America could march an army into Mexico, place a flag on Mexican land and declare it as theirs. If anyone dared argue, they would ask why they don't have the same rights to self-determination as other peoples. Read any thread here you want. It's always the same crap. Or, we go to Palestine wasn't a real place. It does not matter how you label the territory as there were people there and:

The Palestinian Citizenship Order in Council, 1925[1][2][3] was a law of Mandatory Palestine governing the giving of citizenship to the population of the state. It was announced on 24 July 1925 and came into force on 1 August 1925....
Palestinian Citizenship Order, 1925 - Wikipedia

That was over two decades before Ben-Gurion began the Nakba.

(COMMENT)

The Palestine Citizenship Order has nothing to do with → "LAND OWNERSHIP" → "TERRITORIAL SOVEREIGNTY" → "SELF DETERMINATION" or "SOVEREIGN ACQUISITION." →→→

The Government of Palestine prior to May 1948 is the Mandate Administration; but is not a sovereign entity (ie Don't read to much into the meaning of "country."). [See MEMORANDUM “A” LEGAL MEANING OF THE “TERMINATION OF THE MANDATE” (25 February 1948)]

EXCEPTS:

2. After the 15th May, 1948, Palestine will continue to be a legal entity but it will still not be a sovereign state because it will not be immediately self-governing. The authority responsible for its administration will, however, have changed.

3. Where the sovereignty of Palestine lies at the present time in a disputed and perhaps academic legal question about which writers have expressed a number of different conclusions. Where the sovereignty of Palestine will lie after the 15th May, 1948; is perhaps also a question on which different views will be held but so far as His Majesty’s Government are aware, it is a question which it is unnecessary to answer in connection with any practical issues.

4. After the 15th May, 1948, the United Nations Commission will be the Government of Palestine. It does not seem very material whether it is considered to be the de facto or the de jure Government. In any case, its title to be the Government of Palestine will rest on the resolution of the General Assembly.

5. His Majesty’s Government will recognise the United Nations Commission as the authority with which to make an agreement regarding the transfer of the assets of the Government of Palestine.
​

Israel is now it's own self-governing and sovereign state; there is no question. BUT there is a huge question on where the sovereignty rest with respect to the West Bank and Gaza Strip. While the Palestinians might claim the Gaza Strip having been self-governing, only Area "A" can argue a claim it is self-governing.

So another question is, can a legal entity (the West Bank) actually claim to be a state is it never held sovereignty. The Palestinians could have claimed sovereignty if the Jordanians rendered the title to them. But that didn't happen because there was no organized activity to lend title to.

Most Respectfully,
R

5. His Majesty’s Government will recognise the United Nations Commission as the authority with which to make an agreement regarding the transfer of the assets of the Government of Palestine.

Britain was not giving away its assets, only those of the Palestinian government. And if the UN does not claim them, don't they revert to the citizens?

You insist that there was a country called Palestine with a Palestinian government, when there was neither.

The REGION called Palestine was conquered by the Turks for 500 years. There never was an Arab Muslim or Christian government of any kind, before or after.

The Ottomans lost the WWI. They lost any land they had conquered to those who won the war.

Simple. Very simple.

The Ottomans ceded the land to the respective successor states, not to the allied powers or the mandates.

 

[Sixties Fan]

RE: The events in Jerusalem
※→ abi, et al,

Where are you going with this?

But I do. You can pretend to defend the obviously wrong, but you can't.

(COMMENT)

I have not heard your charge in a coherent manner. So I cannot determine what you believe is wrong.

✪ Please tell me simply what the charge is:
✪ When the offense took place, the time period:
✪ What law (Statue or Code or Treaty) you think is violated:​

✪ The various levels of the land dispute...

✪ Calling this a land dispute is zionist propaganda. In 1948, Ben-Gurion declared independence for the zionists in Palestine. The zionist argument is as stupid as assuming that a Christian group from America could march an army into Mexico, place a flag on Mexican land and declare it as theirs. If anyone dared argue, they would ask why they don't have the same rights to self-determination as other peoples. Read any thread here you want. It's always the same crap. Or, we go to Palestine wasn't a real place. It does not matter how you label the territory as there were people there and:

The Palestinian Citizenship Order in Council, 1925[1][2][3] was a law of Mandatory Palestine governing the giving of citizenship to the population of the state. It was announced on 24 July 1925 and came into force on 1 August 1925....
Palestinian Citizenship Order, 1925 - Wikipedia

That was over two decades before Ben-Gurion began the Nakba.

(COMMENT)

The Palestine Citizenship Order has nothing to do with → "LAND OWNERSHIP" → "TERRITORIAL SOVEREIGNTY" → "SELF DETERMINATION" or "SOVEREIGN ACQUISITION." →→→

The Government of Palestine prior to May 1948 is the Mandate Administration; but is not a sovereign entity (ie Don't read to much into the meaning of "country."). [See MEMORANDUM “A” LEGAL MEANING OF THE “TERMINATION OF THE MANDATE” (25 February 1948)]

EXCEPTS:

2. After the 15th May, 1948, Palestine will continue to be a legal entity but it will still not be a sovereign state because it will not be immediately self-governing. The authority responsible for its administration will, however, have changed.

3. Where the sovereignty of Palestine lies at the present time in a disputed and perhaps academic legal question about which writers have expressed a number of different conclusions. Where the sovereignty of Palestine will lie after the 15th May, 1948; is perhaps also a question on which different views will be held but so far as His Majesty’s Government are aware, it is a question which it is unnecessary to answer in connection with any practical issues.

4. After the 15th May, 1948, the United Nations Commission will be the Government of Palestine. It does not seem very material whether it is considered to be the de facto or the de jure Government. In any case, its title to be the Government of Palestine will rest on the resolution of the General Assembly.

5. His Majesty’s Government will recognise the United Nations Commission as the authority with which to make an agreement regarding the transfer of the assets of the Government of Palestine.
​

Israel is now it's own self-governing and sovereign state; there is no question. BUT there is a huge question on where the sovereignty rest with respect to the West Bank and Gaza Strip. While the Palestinians might claim the Gaza Strip having been self-governing, only Area "A" can argue a claim it is self-governing.

So another question is, can a legal entity (the West Bank) actually claim to be a state is it never held sovereignty. The Palestinians could have claimed sovereignty if the Jordanians rendered the title to them. But that didn't happen because there was no organized activity to lend title to.

Most Respectfully,
R

5. His Majesty’s Government will recognise the United Nations Commission as the authority with which to make an agreement regarding the transfer of the assets of the Government of Palestine.

Britain was not giving away its assets, only those of the Palestinian government. And if the UN does not claim them, don't they revert to the citizens?

You insist that there was a country called Palestine with a Palestinian government, when there was neither.

The REGION called Palestine was conquered by the Turks for 500 years. There never was an Arab Muslim or Christian government of any kind, before or after.

The Ottomans lost the WWI. They lost any land they had conquered to those who won the war.

Simple. Very simple.

The Ottomans ceded the land to the respective successor states, not to the allied powers or the mandates.

Are you now telling us that Iraq, Lebanon and Syria were at war on the side of the British?
They existed as sovereign States to be ceded anything after WWI?
And so did Palestine? That it was a sovereign country and the land was ceded to that government?

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The events in Jerusalem
※→ abi, et al,

OK, a very serious question...

How does that enter into the question of Palestine... Did you answer those simple questions.

I have over and over. Taking land in war is a war crime. Your 'logic' works only from neanderthal times until civilization finally became awake after WWII. Read the Nuremberg principles if you still don't get it.

(COMMENT)

When was Israel at War with the Arab Palestinians?

If you are taking about:

• The 1948 War of independence: The conflict was between Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt... And there were the four Armistice Agreements with these parties to the conflict; and there are currently two peace treaties, a letter agreement on the border with the Lebanese, and nothing with the Syrians yet.

• If you are talking about the 1967 Six Day War, same answer.

• If you are talking about the Sneak Attack in 1973 Yom Kipper War, and yes this is where the Egyptian Third Army was encircled. All those disputes are wiped clean now.​

Where were the Palestinians in all this... As usual, nowhere as a party to the conflict. NO one took any territory from the Palestinians. And the conflicts, that would have effected the West Bank and Gaza Strip, were settled by treaties with the Egyptians and Jordanians.

(FRAUDULENT CLAIM)

You cannot make the claim that the Israelis took anything from the Arab Palestinians in war. And you cannot piggyback on the Egyptians and Jordanians because Israel has settled the dispute on the loss to Israel of the Military Governorship over the Gaza Strip and the West Bank Annexed Territory by Jordan that was finally abandon into the hands of the Israelis.

Your claim is fraudulent and the Arab-Palestinian people should be made to pay reparations for the seven decade long temper tantrum they have, and continue with, in the pursuit of this frivolous allegation.

Most Respectfully.
R

There has never been a "war" between Israel and the Palestinians. The Palestinians have never had an army. It has always been the Zionist/Israeli military attacking Palestinian civilians.

The 1948 war was merely a side issue where the Palestinians were not involved. Although that war changed facts on the ground it did not change Palestin's legal status. All it did was to shift occupations around. Occupations do not acquire sovereignty. They only have military control.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The events in Jerusalem
※→ abi, et al,

Oh, for crying out loud ---- !

The Ottomans ceded the land to the respective successor states, not to the allied powers or the mandates.

(COMMENT)

The Treaty of Lausanne does not even com close to saying that... And don't try to use the clause on "nationality" in place of the territorial clauses.

Nationality and territorial integrity or sovereignty are not equivalent. The lines drawn by the Allied Powers are the only ones that count.

[quote="Treaty of Lausanne]
ARTICLE I6. Treaty of Lausanne

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.[/quote]​

This is pretty clear. The parties concerned were the various members of the Allied Powers that were signatories. This was not a matter for the inhabitants to decide.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The events in Jerusalem
※→ abi, et al,

Where are you going with this?

But I do. You can pretend to defend the obviously wrong, but you can't.

(COMMENT)

I have not heard your charge in a coherent manner. So I cannot determine what you believe is wrong.

✪ Please tell me simply what the charge is:
✪ When the offense took place, the time period:
✪ What law (Statue or Code or Treaty) you think is violated:​

✪ Calling this a land dispute is zionist propaganda. In 1948, Ben-Gurion declared independence for the zionists in Palestine. The zionist argument is as stupid as assuming that a Christian group from America could march an army into Mexico, place a flag on Mexican land and declare it as theirs. If anyone dared argue, they would ask why they don't have the same rights to self-determination as other peoples. Read any thread here you want. It's always the same crap. Or, we go to Palestine wasn't a real place. It does not matter how you label the territory as there were people there and:

The Palestinian Citizenship Order in Council, 1925[1][2][3] was a law of Mandatory Palestine governing the giving of citizenship to the population of the state. It was announced on 24 July 1925 and came into force on 1 August 1925....
Palestinian Citizenship Order, 1925 - Wikipedia

That was over two decades before Ben-Gurion began the Nakba.

(COMMENT)

The Palestine Citizenship Order has nothing to do with → "LAND OWNERSHIP" → "TERRITORIAL SOVEREIGNTY" → "SELF DETERMINATION" or "SOVEREIGN ACQUISITION." →→→

The Government of Palestine prior to May 1948 is the Mandate Administration; but is not a sovereign entity (ie Don't read to much into the meaning of "country."). [See MEMORANDUM “A” LEGAL MEANING OF THE “TERMINATION OF THE MANDATE” (25 February 1948)]

EXCEPTS:

2. After the 15th May, 1948, Palestine will continue to be a legal entity but it will still not be a sovereign state because it will not be immediately self-governing. The authority responsible for its administration will, however, have changed.

3. Where the sovereignty of Palestine lies at the present time in a disputed and perhaps academic legal question about which writers have expressed a number of different conclusions. Where the sovereignty of Palestine will lie after the 15th May, 1948; is perhaps also a question on which different views will be held but so far as His Majesty’s Government are aware, it is a question which it is unnecessary to answer in connection with any practical issues.

4. After the 15th May, 1948, the United Nations Commission will be the Government of Palestine. It does not seem very material whether it is considered to be the de facto or the de jure Government. In any case, its title to be the Government of Palestine will rest on the resolution of the General Assembly.

5. His Majesty’s Government will recognise the United Nations Commission as the authority with which to make an agreement regarding the transfer of the assets of the Government of Palestine.
​

Israel is now it's own self-governing and sovereign state; there is no question. BUT there is a huge question on where the sovereignty rest with respect to the West Bank and Gaza Strip. While the Palestinians might claim the Gaza Strip having been self-governing, only Area "A" can argue a claim it is self-governing.

So another question is, can a legal entity (the West Bank) actually claim to be a state is it never held sovereignty. The Palestinians could have claimed sovereignty if the Jordanians rendered the title to them. But that didn't happen because there was no organized activity to lend title to.

Most Respectfully,
R

5. His Majesty’s Government will recognise the United Nations Commission as the authority with which to make an agreement regarding the transfer of the assets of the Government of Palestine.

Britain was not giving away its assets, only those of the Palestinian government. And if the UN does not claim them, don't they revert to the citizens?

You insist that there was a country called Palestine with a Palestinian government, when there was neither.

The REGION called Palestine was conquered by the Turks for 500 years. There never was an Arab Muslim or Christian government of any kind, before or after.

The Ottomans lost the WWI. They lost any land they had conquered to those who won the war.

Simple. Very simple.

The Ottomans ceded the land to the respective successor states, not to the allied powers or the mandates.

Are you now telling us that Iraq, Lebanon and Syria were at war on the side of the British?
They existed as sovereign States to be ceded anything after WWI?
And so did Palestine? That it was a sovereign country and the land was ceded to that government?

No.

and

Yes.

I hope that clears it up for you.

 

[Hollie]

RE: The events in Jerusalem
※→ abi, et al,

OK, a very serious question...

How does that enter into the question of Palestine... Did you answer those simple questions.

I have over and over. Taking land in war is a war crime. Your 'logic' works only from neanderthal times until civilization finally became awake after WWII. Read the Nuremberg principles if you still don't get it.

(COMMENT)

When was Israel at War with the Arab Palestinians?

If you are taking about:

• The 1948 War of independence: The conflict was between Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt... And there were the four Armistice Agreements with these parties to the conflict; and there are currently two peace treaties, a letter agreement on the border with the Lebanese, and nothing with the Syrians yet.

• If you are talking about the 1967 Six Day War, same answer.

• If you are talking about the Sneak Attack in 1973 Yom Kipper War, and yes this is where the Egyptian Third Army was encircled. All those disputes are wiped clean now.​

Where were the Palestinians in all this... As usual, nowhere as a party to the conflict. NO one took any territory from the Palestinians. And the conflicts, that would have effected the West Bank and Gaza Strip, were settled by treaties with the Egyptians and Jordanians.

(FRAUDULENT CLAIM)

You cannot make the claim that the Israelis took anything from the Arab Palestinians in war. And you cannot piggyback on the Egyptians and Jordanians because Israel has settled the dispute on the loss to Israel of the Military Governorship over the Gaza Strip and the West Bank Annexed Territory by Jordan that was finally abandon into the hands of the Israelis.

Your claim is fraudulent and the Arab-Palestinian people should be made to pay reparations for the seven decade long temper tantrum they have, and continue with, in the pursuit of this frivolous allegation.

Most Respectfully.
R

There has never been a "war" between Israel and the Palestinians. The Palestinians have never had an army. It has always been the Zionist/Israeli military attacking Palestinian civilians.

The 1948 war was merely a side issue where the Palestinians were not involved. Although that war changed facts on the ground it did not change Palestin's legal status. All it did was to shift occupations around. Occupations do not acquire sovereignty. They only have military control.

You need to keep up. Hamas has a “military wing” and holds fashion shows wherein those little rogues march around in military style uniforms and fashionable ski masks,

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The events in Jerusalem
※→ abi, et al,

Oh, for crying out loud ---- !

The Ottomans ceded the land to the respective successor states, not to the allied powers or the mandates.

(COMMENT)

The Treaty of Lausanne does not even com close to saying that... And don't try to use the clause on "nationality" in place of the territorial clauses.

Nationality and territorial integrity or sovereignty are not equivalent. The lines drawn by the Allied Powers are the only ones that count.

[quote="Treaty of Lausanne]
ARTICLE I6. Treaty of Lausanne

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.​

​

This is pretty clear. The parties concerned were the various members of the Allied Powers that were signatories. This was not a matter for the inhabitants to decide.

Most Respectfully,
R[/QUOTE]
Article 16 merely released the territory. Article 30 said who was going to get that territory and who would be the citizens of their respective territory. The citizens are the ones with the right to sovereignty.

It is simple. How can that confuse you?

 

[Sixties Fan]

Tinfoil.....you are again.....on the wrong thread.
This thread is NOT about the Mandate for Palestine.

Try....to get your act together.....

 

[Hollie]

RE: The events in Jerusalem
※→ abi, et al,

Oh, for crying out loud ---- !

The Ottomans ceded the land to the respective successor states, not to the allied powers or the mandates.

(COMMENT)

The Treaty of Lausanne does not even com close to saying that... And don't try to use the clause on "nationality" in place of the territorial clauses.

Nationality and territorial integrity or sovereignty are not equivalent. The lines drawn by the Allied Powers are the only ones that count.

[quote="Treaty of Lausanne]
ARTICLE I6. Treaty of Lausanne

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.​

​

This is pretty clear. The parties concerned were the various members of the Allied Powers that were signatories. This was not a matter for the inhabitants to decide.

Most Respectfully,
R

Article 16 merely released the territory. Article 30 said who was going to get that territory and who would be the citizens of their respective territory. The citizens are the ones with the right to sovereignty.

It is simple. How can that confuse you?

The above is further demonstration why your legal opinions always inspire FPE’s (Face Palm Episodes). Why do you insist on trying to re-write the historical record?

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The events in Jerusalem
※→ abi, et al,

OK, a very serious question...

How does that enter into the question of Palestine... Did you answer those simple questions.

I have over and over. Taking land in war is a war crime. Your 'logic' works only from neanderthal times until civilization finally became awake after WWII. Read the Nuremberg principles if you still don't get it.

(COMMENT)

When was Israel at War with the Arab Palestinians?

If you are taking about:

• The 1948 War of independence: The conflict was between Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt... And there were the four Armistice Agreements with these parties to the conflict; and there are currently two peace treaties, a letter agreement on the border with the Lebanese, and nothing with the Syrians yet.

• If you are talking about the 1967 Six Day War, same answer.

• If you are talking about the Sneak Attack in 1973 Yom Kipper War, and yes this is where the Egyptian Third Army was encircled. All those disputes are wiped clean now.​

Where were the Palestinians in all this... As usual, nowhere as a party to the conflict. NO one took any territory from the Palestinians. And the conflicts, that would have effected the West Bank and Gaza Strip, were settled by treaties with the Egyptians and Jordanians.

(FRAUDULENT CLAIM)

You cannot make the claim that the Israelis took anything from the Arab Palestinians in war. And you cannot piggyback on the Egyptians and Jordanians because Israel has settled the dispute on the loss to Israel of the Military Governorship over the Gaza Strip and the West Bank Annexed Territory by Jordan that was finally abandon into the hands of the Israelis.

Your claim is fraudulent and the Arab-Palestinian people should be made to pay reparations for the seven decade long temper tantrum they have, and continue with, in the pursuit of this frivolous allegation.

Most Respectfully.
R

There has never been a "war" between Israel and the Palestinians. The Palestinians have never had an army. It has always been the Zionist/Israeli military attacking Palestinian civilians.

The 1948 war was merely a side issue where the Palestinians were not involved. Although that war changed facts on the ground it did not change Palestin's legal status. All it did was to shift occupations around. Occupations do not acquire sovereignty. They only have military control.

You need to keep up. Hamas has a “military wing” and holds fashion shows wherein those little rogues march around in military style uniforms and fashionable ski masks,

Palestine has no military. There are some political parties that have civilian militias. None of them are paid by or under the control of the government.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Tinfoil.....you are again.....on the wrong thread.
This thread is NOT about the Mandate for Palestine.

Try....to get your act together.....

I was merely responding to a post aimed at me.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The events in Jerusalem
※→ abi, et al,

Oh, for crying out loud ---- !

The Ottomans ceded the land to the respective successor states, not to the allied powers or the mandates.

(COMMENT)

The Treaty of Lausanne does not even com close to saying that... And don't try to use the clause on "nationality" in place of the territorial clauses.

Nationality and territorial integrity or sovereignty are not equivalent. The lines drawn by the Allied Powers are the only ones that count.

[quote="Treaty of Lausanne]
ARTICLE I6. Treaty of Lausanne

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.​

​

This is pretty clear. The parties concerned were the various members of the Allied Powers that were signatories. This was not a matter for the inhabitants to decide.

Most Respectfully,
R

Article 16 merely released the territory. Article 30 said who was going to get that territory and who would be the citizens of their respective territory. The citizens are the ones with the right to sovereignty.

It is simple. How can that confuse you?

The above is further demonstration why your legal opinions always inspire FPE’s (Face Palm Episodes). Why do you insist on trying to re-write the historical record?

Where does the historical record refute my post?

Links?

 

[Indeependent]

Tinfoil.....you are again.....on the wrong thread.
This thread is NOT about the Mandate for Palestine.

Try....to get your act together.....

I was merely responding to a post aimed at me.

The only thing anyone is aiming at you is your own dog dung.

 

[Indeependent]

RE: The events in Jerusalem
※→ abi, et al,

Oh, for crying out loud ---- !

The Ottomans ceded the land to the respective successor states, not to the allied powers or the mandates.

(COMMENT)

The Treaty of Lausanne does not even com close to saying that... And don't try to use the clause on "nationality" in place of the territorial clauses.

Nationality and territorial integrity or sovereignty are not equivalent. The lines drawn by the Allied Powers are the only ones that count.

[quote="Treaty of Lausanne]
ARTICLE I6. Treaty of Lausanne

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.​

​

This is pretty clear. The parties concerned were the various members of the Allied Powers that were signatories. This was not a matter for the inhabitants to decide.

Most Respectfully,
R

Article 16 merely released the territory. Article 30 said who was going to get that territory and who would be the citizens of their respective territory. The citizens are the ones with the right to sovereignty.

It is simple. How can that confuse you?

The above is further demonstration why your legal opinions always inspire FPE’s (Face Palm Episodes). Why do you insist on trying to re-write the historical record?

Where does the historical record refute my post?

Links?

First your Links from a non-Arab site.