Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Y'all keep bringing up the Mandate like it meant something. The Allied Powers decided not to annex the new states that were broken off of the defunct Ottoman empire. The land was transferred to Palestine. Former Ottoman subjects became Palestinian nationals and citizens of Palestine.And you totally omit the existence of the Mandate for Palestine during that time and why the British chose the word Palestine and not Israel.
Y'all keep bringing up the Mandate like it meant something. The Allied Powers decided not to annex the new states that were broken off of the defunct Ottoman empire. The land was transferred to Palestine. Former Ottoman subjects became Palestinian nationals and citizens of Palestine.
The Mandate had no land, no territory, and no sovereignty. It had no authority to change that status.
Link?The land was transferred to Palestine.
No it wasn't.
Why do you insist on cutting and pasting this nonsense?Y'all keep bringing up the Mandate like it meant something. The Allied Powers decided not to annex the new states that were broken off of the defunct Ottoman empire. The land was transferred to Palestine. Former Ottoman subjects became Palestinian nationals and citizens of Palestine.
The Mandate had no land, no territory, and no sovereignty. It had no authority to change that status.
(COMMENT)Y'all keep bringing up the Mandate like it meant something. The Allied Powers decided not to annex the new states that were broken off of the defunct Ottoman empire. The land was transferred to Palestine. Former Ottoman subjects became Palestinian nationals and citizens of Palestine.
The Mandate had no land, no territory, and no sovereignty. It had no authority to change that status.
Let us all understand that it was never about Palestinians, be it Arab, Jews, Druze, etc.RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
SUBTOPIC: Challenge to Posting #1877 (supra)
⁜→ et al,
.
Much of what you said here is true. But even if it were 100% false, a change decision made between the Allied Powers at the time have long since faded away. The League of Nations (LoN) expired in September 1946 (76 years ago).
.
(COMMENT)
.
The concepts, following the end of WWI Treaty of Lausanne (1923) (AKA: Treaty of Peace with Turkey), was not influenced much by the Arab Palestinians. The Arab Palestinians were not a signatory to the Treaty. The Treaty was one consolidated set of understandings that had to cover the concerns of the British Empire, France, Italy, Japan, Greece, Romania, and the Serbian-Creation-Slovenian Territory. A very important piece of the Treaty (as it pertains to the Palestinian Territory) was Article 3:
PART I. POLITICAL CLAUSES. SECTION I. TERRITORIAL CLAUSES.
ARTICLE 3 (EXCERPT of the TREATY): Treaty of Peace with Turkey Signed at Lausanne, July 24, 1923)From the Mediterranean to the frontier of Persia, the frontier of Turkey is laid down as follows:(I ) With Syria:The frontier described in Article 8 of the Franco-Turkish Agreement of the 20th October, 1921(2) With Iraq:The frontier between Turkey and Iraq shall be laid down in friendly arrangement to be concluded between Turkey and Great Britain within nine months.In the event of no agreement being reached between the two Governments within the time mentioned, the dispute shall be referred to the Council of the League of Nations.The Turkish and British Governments reciprocally undertake that, pending the decision to be reached on the subject of the frontier, no military or other movement shall take place which might modify in any way the present state of the territories of which the final fate will depend upon that decision.
The Arab Palestinians, more often than not, attempt to justify their various claims by dragging in all types of agreement covenants, treaties, and other arrangements. But until the Oslo Accords
Most Respectfully,
R
Let us all understand that it was never about Palestinians, be it Arab, Jews, Druze, etc.
The Arab rejection of the The Mandate for Palestine from the start caused by Al- Husseini, was and continues to be a rejection of the Jews being sovereign over Muslims, even on any part of their ancient Jewish homeland.
Proof?
1948 to 1967
Both Gaza, Judea, Samaria and the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem were taken by Egypt and Transjordan. And the Muslims and Christians of the those areas did not complain for one second. Not one.
Tinmore can say all he wants that the land was to go back to its natives. The Jews are the Indigenous, native people of the land. The Mandate for Palestine was to go to the Indigenous people of the land, with all others continuing to live there under Jewish governance.
As we know, the Al-Husseini clan could not allow it to happen. Defeated Arab clans which were pro a rebuilding of the Jewish Nation and started riots against the Jews.
Tinmore will never own up that it is about Christian and Islamic lack of acceptance of the Jews as equal to themselves. As having the same rights. The extremists, like Tinmore, want the Jews to remain stateless and "wandering" without a place where they can go and be protected, where they can protect themselves.
Does Tinmore misunderstand what the treaties say? Who knows. Maybe he just wishes to understand them that way because he cannot accept that Jews did manage to secure their rights to any part of their ancient land. Which is why he and others keep wanting the Jews to "give back" the land which is theirs by right, to begin with, to those who want them unprotected and easier to attack.
Not that they are not attacking Jews all over the world, as it is .
It was never about Israel, it is about Jews having equal rights to being sovereign over any piece of land. Especially any land conquered by any Islamic group.
They did not have to be. The Allied Powers decided to not annex the territory. That the territory would be carved into new states. That the people would be the nationals and citizens of their respective new state.The concepts, following the end of WWI Treaty of Lausanne (1923) (AKA: Treaty of Peace with Turkey), was not influenced much by the Arab Palestinians. The Arab Palestinians were not a signatory to the Treaty.
More Israeli bullshit.No country, no transfer.
Not complicated.
More Israeli bullshit.
And still no link.
You said it. You prove it.You want me to link to "Palestine isn't a country today and wasn't a country when the Allies didn't 'transfer land to Palestine'"?
You said it. You prove it.
Link?
Links.Yes. I said Palestine was never a country. Because it never was a country.
Not then. Not now. Not ever.
What proof would you accept?
Allied Powers decided to not annex the territory to what other territory?They did not have to be. The Allied Powers decided to not annex the territory. That the territory would be carved into new states. That the people would be the nationals and citizens of their respective new state.
Some people want to monkey motion more into it but these are the basics.
What do you believe is served by spamming threads with this nonsense?More Israeli bullshit.
And still no link.
Links.
What ''new states''?They did not have to be. The Allied Powers decided to not annex the territory. That the territory would be carved into new states. That the people would be the nationals and citizens of their respective new state.
Some people want to monkey motion more into it but these are the basics.
I looked for a link to when Palestine was a nation.
Couldn't find one.
Sorry.
I saw a couple of Wiki links.Decisions of international and national tribunals
The U.S. State Department Digest of International Law says that the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne provided for the application of the principles of state succession to the "A" Mandates. The Treaty of Versailles (1920) provisionally recognized the former Ottoman communities as independent nations. It also required Germany to recognize the disposition of the former Ottoman territories and to recognize the new states laid down within their boundaries. The Treaty of Lausanne required the newly created states that acquired the territory to pay annuities on the Ottoman public debt, and to assume responsibility for the administration of concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans. A dispute regarding the status of the territories was settled by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. It was decided that Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties. In its Judgment No. 5, The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, the Permanent Court of International Justice also decided that Palestine was responsible as the successor state for concessions granted by Ottoman authorities. The Courts of Palestine and Great Britain decided that title to the properties shown on the Ottoman Civil list had been ceded to the government of Palestine as an allied successor state.[25]
For John Quigley, Palestine's existence as a state predates the 1988 declaration. Tracing Palestine's status as an international entity back to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire after World War I, he recalls that the Palestine Mandate (1918–1948), an arrangement made under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, held as its "ultimate objective", the "self-determination and independence of the people concerned." He says that in explicitly referring to the Covenant, the 1988 declaration was reaffirming an existing Palestinian statehood.
State of Palestine: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
