The OLDER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate

[Shusha]

And what successor state got this territory and nationality? Palestine.

You are just playing word games that have no real life meaning. What are you trying to say here -- that there wouldn't be a conflict if Israel hadn't named herself Israel, but had called herself "Palestine" instead? Its silly.

 

[P F Tinmore]

And what successor state got this territory and nationality? Palestine.

You are just playing word games that have no real life meaning. What are you trying to say here -- that there wouldn't be a conflict if Israel hadn't named herself Israel, but had called herself "Palestine" instead? Its silly.

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]

State of Palestine: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Let me try an answer this, reduced to the simplest form.

You stated in one of your posts:

• The Treaty of Lausanne and the Palestinian citizenship order of 1925 have NO relationship to the idea of independence and sovereignty.

I beg to differ. Palestine was a successor state. What was said and done?

Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​

(COMMENT)

First: This is wrong: "Palestine" is the short title name for "the limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine."

And what successor state got this territory and nationality? Palestine.

(COMMENT)

The Successor Government to the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic for that particular landscape was the Mandatory; as appointed by the Allied Powers.

The automatic, ipso facto, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​

(COMMENT)

This is also not quite correct: "Ottoman to Palestinian nationality"

The correct interpretation was that the inhabitants moved from being citizens of the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic - to - citizens of The Territory under Mandate. NOT (just plain) Palestine. The language on citizenship comes from the 1922 Order in Council, and is just copied over to the Treaty of Lausanne. As far as the Allied Powers were concerned, Palestine was "legal entity" and territory under mandate; NOT a state or government. And this held true even beyond the termination of the Mandate.

So, who has the authority to change that?

(COMMENT)

There is no change. The intent of the Allied Powers, articulated in the San Remo Agreement of 1920, remain the same throughout the period of the Mandate. But if a change was needed to be made, it would be made by the Allied Powers, from the San Remo Convention.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is absolutely NOT Correct!

And what successor state got this territory and nationality? Palestine.

You are just playing word games that have no real life meaning. What are you trying to say here -- that there wouldn't be a conflict if Israel hadn't named herself Israel, but had called herself "Palestine" instead? Its silly.

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]

State of Palestine: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(REFERENCEs)

A05
Mavrommatis Jerusalem Concessions (AKA: Judgment #5)

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

The Government of the Greek Republic, by an application filed with the Registry of the Court on May 13th, 1924, in accordance with Arlrticle 40 of the Statute and Article 35 of the Rules
of Court, has su1)ilii-tted to the Permanent Court of International Justice a suit arising out of the alleged refusal on the part of the Government of Palestine and consequently also on the part of His Britannic Majesty's Government, in its capacity as Mandatory Power for Palestine, since the year 1921, to recognize to their full extent the rigl-its ücquired by M. Mavrommatis, a Greek subject, under contracts and agreements concluded by hirn with the Ottoman authorities, in regard to concessions for certain public works
to 1be constructed in Palestine.​

Then, jump to the last page and you will find that in the Judgement of the Court, the claim was valid and obligations accepted by the Mandatory for Palestine.

(COMMENT)

While it is true, that each Mandatory Power, being the successor government, accepted the previous debt, it is not true that either the Mandate or the Treaty of Versailles "recognise the new States within their frontiers as there laid down." That is to say, as new demarcations of states are created. But the territories of (what we call today as Palestine and Jordan) were really parts of several Vilayets; absolutely nothing corresponding to the claim states; and certainly no political subdivisions called Jordan or Palestine.

And your last sentence shows some additional confusion. Great Britain (GB), as the assigned Mandatory for the Zone B Sykes-Picot Agreement, became the Government of Palestine. What GB decided relative to personal land grants and property ownership has absolutely no impact on the establishment of government.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Let me try an answer this, reduced to the simplest form.

You stated in one of your posts:

• The Treaty of Lausanne and the Palestinian citizenship order of 1925 have NO relationship to the idea of independence and sovereignty.

I beg to differ. Palestine was a successor state. What was said and done?

Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​

(COMMENT)

First: This is wrong: "Palestine" is the short title name for "the limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine."

And what successor state got this territory and nationality? Palestine.

(COMMENT)

The Successor Government to the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic for that particular landscape was the Mandatory; as appointed by the Allied Powers.

The automatic, ipso facto, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​

(COMMENT)

This is also not quite correct: "Ottoman to Palestinian nationality"

The correct interpretation was that the inhabitants moved from being citizens of the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic - to - citizens of The Territory under Mandate. NOT (just plain) Palestine. The language on citizenship comes from the 1922 Order in Council, and is just copied over to the Treaty of Lausanne. As far as the Allied Powers were concerned, Palestine was "legal entity" and territory under mandate; NOT a state or government. And this held true even beyond the termination of the Mandate.

So, who has the authority to change that?

(COMMENT)

There is no change. The intent of the Allied Powers, articulated in the San Remo Agreement of 1920, remain the same throughout the period of the Mandate. But if a change was needed to be made, it would be made by the Allied Powers, from the San Remo Convention.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are just pimping Israel's old canard that there was no Palestine and there were no Palestinians.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore,

There are all kinds of people that adopt unofficial regional names. In this case, the Arabs of the Regin adopted the name of the Mandate.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Let me try an answer this, reduced to the simplest form.

You stated in one of your posts:

• The Treaty of Lausanne and the Palestinian citizenship order of 1925 have NO relationship to the idea of independence and sovereignty.

I beg to differ. Palestine was a successor state. What was said and done?

Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​

(COMMENT)

First: This is wrong: "Palestine" is the short title name for "the limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine."

And what successor state got this territory and nationality? Palestine.

(COMMENT)

The Successor Government to the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic for that particular landscape was the Mandatory; as appointed by the Allied Powers.

The automatic, ipso facto, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​

(COMMENT)

This is also not quite correct: "Ottoman to Palestinian nationality"

The correct interpretation was that the inhabitants moved from being citizens of the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic - to - citizens of The Territory under Mandate. NOT (just plain) Palestine. The language on citizenship comes from the 1922 Order in Council, and is just copied over to the Treaty of Lausanne. As far as the Allied Powers were concerned, Palestine was "legal entity" and territory under mandate; NOT a state or government. And this held true even beyond the termination of the Mandate.

So, who has the authority to change that?

(COMMENT)

There is no change. The intent of the Allied Powers, articulated in the San Remo Agreement of 1920, remain the same throughout the period of the Mandate. But if a change was needed to be made, it would be made by the Allied Powers, from the San Remo Convention.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are just pimping Israel's old canard that there was no Palestine and there were no Palestinians.

(COMMENT)

The rough analogy to the name "Palestinian" (1922 to 1988) is "Appalachian" (although some prefer "Alleghania") the affectionate name for people from Appalachia (includes 420 counties in 13 states). It is about 205,000-square-mile; by comparison the former British Mandate of Palestine was 10,280.2 sq. miles.

The Mandate for Palestine was, by treaty and direction, determined by the Allied Powers.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore,

There are all kinds of people that adopt unofficial regional names. In this case, the Arabs of the Regin adopted the name of the Mandate.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Let me try an answer this, reduced to the simplest form.

You stated in one of your posts:

• The Treaty of Lausanne and the Palestinian citizenship order of 1925 have NO relationship to the idea of independence and sovereignty.

I beg to differ. Palestine was a successor state. What was said and done?

Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​

(COMMENT)

First: This is wrong: "Palestine" is the short title name for "the limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine."

And what successor state got this territory and nationality? Palestine.

(COMMENT)

The Successor Government to the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic for that particular landscape was the Mandatory; as appointed by the Allied Powers.

The automatic, ipso facto, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​

(COMMENT)

This is also not quite correct: "Ottoman to Palestinian nationality"

The correct interpretation was that the inhabitants moved from being citizens of the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic - to - citizens of The Territory under Mandate. NOT (just plain) Palestine. The language on citizenship comes from the 1922 Order in Council, and is just copied over to the Treaty of Lausanne. As far as the Allied Powers were concerned, Palestine was "legal entity" and territory under mandate; NOT a state or government. And this held true even beyond the termination of the Mandate.

So, who has the authority to change that?

(COMMENT)

There is no change. The intent of the Allied Powers, articulated in the San Remo Agreement of 1920, remain the same throughout the period of the Mandate. But if a change was needed to be made, it would be made by the Allied Powers, from the San Remo Convention.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are just pimping Israel's old canard that there was no Palestine and there were no Palestinians.

(COMMENT)

The rough analogy to the name "Palestinian" (1922 to 1988) is "Appalachian" (although some prefer "Alleghania") the affectionate name for people from Appalachia (includes 420 counties in 13 states). It is about 205,000-square-mile; by comparison the former British Mandate of Palestine was 10,280.2 sq. miles.

The Mandate for Palestine was, by treaty and direction, determined by the Allied Powers.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Mandate was not Palestine.

You are just pimping Israeli propaganda.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Now you're just being silly.

The Mandate was not Palestine.

You are just pimping Israeli propaganda.

(COMMENT)

As I said. The Palestine Order in Council which defines the meaning of Palestine in the geopolitical setting is published two days before the Mandate.

"The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine."​

Fact in itself, unmanipulated, is hardly anyone's propaganda. When you make a statement in fact, but in such a way that an improper conclusion can be drawn from the inference, that is the spread (intentionally or unintentionally) of misinformation.

"Participation in the United Nations forums that refer to a "State of Palestine" does not constitute US recognition of Palestinian statehood, UN Ambassador Susan Rice said.

"Any reference to the 'State of Palestine' in the United Nations, including the use of the term 'State of Palestine' on the placard in the Security Council or the use of the term 'State of Palestine' in the invitation to this meeting or other arrangements for participation in this meeting, do not reflect acquiescence that Palestine is a state," Rice, the US envoy to the world body, said Wednesday at a Security Council debate on the Middle East.

The United States was one of seven nations, including Israel, that voted Nov. 29 against elevating the Palestine Liberation Organization's status to non-member state in the General Assembly. The motion passed with 138 voting for and 41 abstaining."
SOURCE: Jerusalem Post 13 April 2016 By JTA Reprinted 01/24/2013 13:36
​

I'm not sure your supposition that "I am pimping Israeli propaganda" is fallacious reasoning or Criticism as a fallacy. But it certainly does not address the point.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Now you're just being silly.

The Mandate was not Palestine.

You are just pimping Israeli propaganda.

(COMMENT)

As I said. The Palestine Order in Council which defines the meaning of Palestine in the geopolitical setting is published two days before the Mandate.

"The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine."​

Fact in itself, unmanipulated, is hardly anyone's propaganda. When you make a statement in fact, but in such a way that an improper conclusion can be drawn from the inference, that is the spread (intentionally or unintentionally) of misinformation.

"Participation in the United Nations forums that refer to a "State of Palestine" does not constitute US recognition of Palestinian statehood, UN Ambassador Susan Rice said.

"Any reference to the 'State of Palestine' in the United Nations, including the use of the term 'State of Palestine' on the placard in the Security Council or the use of the term 'State of Palestine' in the invitation to this meeting or other arrangements for participation in this meeting, do not reflect acquiescence that Palestine is a state," Rice, the US envoy to the world body, said Wednesday at a Security Council debate on the Middle East.

The United States was one of seven nations, including Israel, that voted Nov. 29 against elevating the Palestine Liberation Organization's status to non-member state in the General Assembly. The motion passed with 138 voting for and 41 abstaining."
SOURCE: Jerusalem Post 13 April 2016 By JTA Reprinted 01/24/2013 13:36
​

I'm not sure your supposition that "I am pimping Israeli propaganda" is fallacious reasoning or Criticism as a fallacy. But it certainly does not address the point.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Order in Council was two years before Palestine became a successor state. Of course it would be described by different terminology.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The Treaties of Lausanne and Versailles do not set an obligation anything for the Allied Powers. Nor do they create a territorial space called Palestine. Neither Treaty relinquishes any rights or title to any inhabitance.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Now you're just being silly.

The Mandate was not Palestine.

You are just pimping Israeli propaganda.

(COMMENT)

As I said. The Palestine Order in Council which defines the meaning of Palestine in the geopolitical setting is published two days before the Mandate.

"The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine."​

Fact in itself, unmanipulated, is hardly anyone's propaganda. When you make a statement in fact, but in such a way that an improper conclusion can be drawn from the inference, that is the spread (intentionally or unintentionally) of misinformation.

"Participation in the United Nations forums that refer to a "State of Palestine" does not constitute US recognition of Palestinian statehood, UN Ambassador Susan Rice said.

"Any reference to the 'State of Palestine' in the United Nations, including the use of the term 'State of Palestine' on the placard in the Security Council or the use of the term 'State of Palestine' in the invitation to this meeting or other arrangements for participation in this meeting, do not reflect acquiescence that Palestine is a state," Rice, the US envoy to the world body, said Wednesday at a Security Council debate on the Middle East.

The United States was one of seven nations, including Israel, that voted Nov. 29 against elevating the Palestine Liberation Organization's status to non-member state in the General Assembly. The motion passed with 138 voting for and 41 abstaining."
SOURCE: Jerusalem Post 13 April 2016 By JTA Reprinted 01/24/2013 13:36
​

I'm not sure your supposition that "I am pimping Israeli propaganda" is fallacious reasoning or Criticism as a fallacy. But it certainly does not address the point.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Order in Council was two years before Palestine became a successor state. Of course it would be described by different terminology.

(COMMENT)

Where, in either treaty, is Palestine mentioned.

There is no question that all the member nations understood that the Empire/Republic the Allied Powers had ALL TITLES AND RIGHTS pertaining to Palestine. And why should the Arab Palestinians of today even concern themselves with these treaties when the Arab Palestine was not even a party to the treaties?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

And what successor state got this territory and nationality? Palestine.

You are just playing word games that have no real life meaning. What are you trying to say here -- that there wouldn't be a conflict if Israel hadn't named herself Israel, but had called herself "Palestine" instead? Its silly.

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]

State of Palestine: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And not one of your links says anything about Palestine being an A mandate or about it being a successor state. But they do say that a mandatory will be put in charge of certain areas until the inhabitants can show and prove free determination and the ability to stand on their own.

The world is still waiting for the Palestinians to show anything but aggression and violence till they get their own way.


By the way the actual judgment was that Britain as the mandatory was responsible for the debts accrued and that they should raise the monies from the mandate. The non existent state of Palestine had a non existent government to raise these monies and pay their debts

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Let me try an answer this, reduced to the simplest form.

You stated in one of your posts:

• The Treaty of Lausanne and the Palestinian citizenship order of 1925 have NO relationship to the idea of independence and sovereignty.

I beg to differ. Palestine was a successor state. What was said and done?

Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​

(COMMENT)

First: This is wrong: "Palestine" is the short title name for "the limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine."

And what successor state got this territory and nationality? Palestine.

(COMMENT)

The Successor Government to the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic for that particular landscape was the Mandatory; as appointed by the Allied Powers.

The automatic, ipso facto, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​

(COMMENT)

This is also not quite correct: "Ottoman to Palestinian nationality"

The correct interpretation was that the inhabitants moved from being citizens of the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic - to - citizens of The Territory under Mandate. NOT (just plain) Palestine. The language on citizenship comes from the 1922 Order in Council, and is just copied over to the Treaty of Lausanne. As far as the Allied Powers were concerned, Palestine was "legal entity" and territory under mandate; NOT a state or government. And this held true even beyond the termination of the Mandate.

So, who has the authority to change that?

(COMMENT)

There is no change. The intent of the Allied Powers, articulated in the San Remo Agreement of 1920, remain the same throughout the period of the Mandate. But if a change was needed to be made, it would be made by the Allied Powers, from the San Remo Convention.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are just pimping Israel's old canard that there was no Palestine and there were no Palestinians.

WRONG it is a matter of historical record found in the many treaties of that time and entered into the minutes of the LoN meeting's in relation to the many mandates.

It is you pimping the islamonazi propaganda canard all the time, and using links that have proven to be manipulated and altered by your favourite author in the islamonazi's favour.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore,

There are all kinds of people that adopt unofficial regional names. In this case, the Arabs of the Regin adopted the name of the Mandate.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Let me try an answer this, reduced to the simplest form.

You stated in one of your posts:

• The Treaty of Lausanne and the Palestinian citizenship order of 1925 have NO relationship to the idea of independence and sovereignty.

I beg to differ. Palestine was a successor state. What was said and done?

Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​

(COMMENT)

First: This is wrong: "Palestine" is the short title name for "the limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine."

And what successor state got this territory and nationality? Palestine.

(COMMENT)

The Successor Government to the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic for that particular landscape was the Mandatory; as appointed by the Allied Powers.

The automatic, ipso facto, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​

(COMMENT)

This is also not quite correct: "Ottoman to Palestinian nationality"

The correct interpretation was that the inhabitants moved from being citizens of the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic - to - citizens of The Territory under Mandate. NOT (just plain) Palestine. The language on citizenship comes from the 1922 Order in Council, and is just copied over to the Treaty of Lausanne. As far as the Allied Powers were concerned, Palestine was "legal entity" and territory under mandate; NOT a state or government. And this held true even beyond the termination of the Mandate.

So, who has the authority to change that?

(COMMENT)

There is no change. The intent of the Allied Powers, articulated in the San Remo Agreement of 1920, remain the same throughout the period of the Mandate. But if a change was needed to be made, it would be made by the Allied Powers, from the San Remo Convention.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are just pimping Israel's old canard that there was no Palestine and there were no Palestinians.

(COMMENT)

The rough analogy to the name "Palestinian" (1922 to 1988) is "Appalachian" (although some prefer "Alleghania") the affectionate name for people from Appalachia (includes 420 counties in 13 states). It is about 205,000-square-mile; by comparison the former British Mandate of Palestine was 10,280.2 sq. miles.

The Mandate for Palestine was, by treaty and direction, determined by the Allied Powers.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Mandate was not Palestine.

You are just pimping Israeli propaganda.

Read the relevant documentation again and see that it was in part.

How can it be Israeli propaganda when in pre dates modern Israel by many years, the mandate of Palestine was in existence from 1923, and is still in existence until the last of the land is sorted regarding ownership.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Now you're just being silly.

The Mandate was not Palestine.

You are just pimping Israeli propaganda.

(COMMENT)

As I said. The Palestine Order in Council which defines the meaning of Palestine in the geopolitical setting is published two days before the Mandate.

"The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine."​

Fact in itself, unmanipulated, is hardly anyone's propaganda. When you make a statement in fact, but in such a way that an improper conclusion can be drawn from the inference, that is the spread (intentionally or unintentionally) of misinformation.

"Participation in the United Nations forums that refer to a "State of Palestine" does not constitute US recognition of Palestinian statehood, UN Ambassador Susan Rice said.

"Any reference to the 'State of Palestine' in the United Nations, including the use of the term 'State of Palestine' on the placard in the Security Council or the use of the term 'State of Palestine' in the invitation to this meeting or other arrangements for participation in this meeting, do not reflect acquiescence that Palestine is a state," Rice, the US envoy to the world body, said Wednesday at a Security Council debate on the Middle East.

The United States was one of seven nations, including Israel, that voted Nov. 29 against elevating the Palestine Liberation Organization's status to non-member state in the General Assembly. The motion passed with 138 voting for and 41 abstaining."
SOURCE: Jerusalem Post 13 April 2016 By JTA Reprinted 01/24/2013 13:36
​

I'm not sure your supposition that "I am pimping Israeli propaganda" is fallacious reasoning or Criticism as a fallacy. But it certainly does not address the point.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Order in Council was two years before Palestine became a successor state. Of course it would be described by different terminology.

And where is the proof of Palestine becoming a successor state, it has to be in the same way that the other nations came to be successor states. You cant use your altered treaties that are just one mans views as proof positive of this.
If the treaty that you refer to uses the Order in Council as its foundation then the terminology is just as valid. So stop clutching at straws and deflecting away from the truth and just admit that you are wrong

 

[Challenger]

Palestine was "legal entity"

Government of Palestine and consequently also on the part of His Britannic Majesty's Government, in its capacity as Mandatory Power for Palestine,

Interesting. If I might make an observation, if Palestine was a legal entity and had a government seperate and distinct from HBMG, then it qualifies as a state, does it not? Even under Montevideo requirements Palestine had a territory, a population, and a government. Just because that government was controlled by a foreign power (Britain) does not in any way detract from it's status as a state.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The Treaties of Lausanne and Versailles do not set an obligation anything for the Allied Powers. Nor do they create a territorial space called Palestine. Neither Treaty relinquishes any rights or title to any inhabitance.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Now you're just being silly.

The Mandate was not Palestine.

You are just pimping Israeli propaganda.

(COMMENT)

As I said. The Palestine Order in Council which defines the meaning of Palestine in the geopolitical setting is published two days before the Mandate.

"The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine."​

Fact in itself, unmanipulated, is hardly anyone's propaganda. When you make a statement in fact, but in such a way that an improper conclusion can be drawn from the inference, that is the spread (intentionally or unintentionally) of misinformation.

"Participation in the United Nations forums that refer to a "State of Palestine" does not constitute US recognition of Palestinian statehood, UN Ambassador Susan Rice said.

"Any reference to the 'State of Palestine' in the United Nations, including the use of the term 'State of Palestine' on the placard in the Security Council or the use of the term 'State of Palestine' in the invitation to this meeting or other arrangements for participation in this meeting, do not reflect acquiescence that Palestine is a state," Rice, the US envoy to the world body, said Wednesday at a Security Council debate on the Middle East.

The United States was one of seven nations, including Israel, that voted Nov. 29 against elevating the Palestine Liberation Organization's status to non-member state in the General Assembly. The motion passed with 138 voting for and 41 abstaining."
SOURCE: Jerusalem Post 13 April 2016 By JTA Reprinted 01/24/2013 13:36
​

I'm not sure your supposition that "I am pimping Israeli propaganda" is fallacious reasoning or Criticism as a fallacy. But it certainly does not address the point.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Order in Council was two years before Palestine became a successor state. Of course it would be described by different terminology.

(COMMENT)

Where, in either treaty, is Palestine mentioned.

There is no question that all the member nations understood that the Empire/Republic the Allied Powers had ALL TITLES AND RIGHTS pertaining to Palestine. And why should the Arab Palestinians of today even concern themselves with these treaties when the Arab Palestine was not even a party to the treaties?

Most Respectfully,
R

I have posted many things saying that Palestine is a state. You have posted nothing saying that it is not.

 

[RoccoR]

Challenger, P F Tinmore, et al,

You both are having troube with your memory.

Interesting. If I might make an observation, if Palestine was a legal entity and had a government seperate and distinct from HBMG, then it qualifies as a state, does it not? Even under Montevideo requirements Palestine had a territory, a population, and a government. Just because that government was controlled by a foreign power (Britain) does not in any way detract from it's status as a state.

(COMMENT)

Yes, this is a bit complicate for you.

Great Britain (HBMG) is a government that covered the entire British Empire. And in being part of the British Empire, you have that citizenship,

In the first half of the 20th Century (1900 -1949) de facto citizenship of the United Kingdom and the British Empire (AKA British Subjects), was any person born in the United Kingdom or the British Empire, including the independent dominions (but not including protectorates). Palestine was a territory under a Mandate issued by the League of Nations (LoN) in agreement with the Allied Powers that held the Title and Rights.

That is a very different thing being a Citizen of the territory under the Mandate for Palestine, a territory subject to the Order in Council and the Allied Powers have agreed to entrust to a Mandatory, selected by Allied Power, the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them. The Mandate was monitored and supervised by the Permanent Mandates Commission of the LoN.

Mandate

League of Nations
Written by: The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica
Alternative title: mandated territory

Mandate, an authorization granted by the League of Nations to a member nation to govern a formerGerman or Turkish colony. The territory was called a mandated territory, or mandate.
​

Great Britain maintained and acted as the Government of Palestine,; but it was not a colonial holding and was not under British Sovereignty.

BIG DIFFERENCE!

Do not confuse the de facto "Government of Palestine" as a government by the Arab inhabitants and for the Arab inhabitance. In fact, the High Commissioner has governed Palestine with the aid of Councils consisting exclusively of British officials during the entire period between 1922 and 1948. Every attempt by the High Commissioner to engage the Arab Palestinians to establish an Arab Agency was declined on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people.

I have posted many things saying that Palestine is a state. You have posted nothing saying that it is not.

(COMMENT)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------​

UN Palestine Commission
27 February 1948

UNITED NATIONS
Department of Public Information
Press and Publications Bureau
Lake Success, New York
​

Press Release PAL/138
27 February 1948
​

UK MEMORANDUM NAMES COMMISSION
AS SUCCESSOR GOVERNMENT
​

The Government of the United Kingdom, in a memorandum on the "Legal Meaning of the Termination of the Mandate", has advised the United Nations Palestine Commission that so far the Mandatory Power is concerned the United Nations Commission will be the Government of Palestine after 15 May 1948.

The memorandum, transmitted to the Commission by the British Delegation to the United Nations, sets forth the position of the Mandatory Power with respect to the question of the successor government in Palestine after the termination of the British mandate. Pertinent excerpts from the memorandum are as follows:

"Palestine is today a legal entity but it is not a sovereign state. Palestine is a territory administered under mandate by His Majesty (in respect of the United Kingdom), who is entirely responsible both for its internal administration and for its foreign affairs.
"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.
"Where the sovereignty of Palestine lies at the present time is 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.

"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.

"His Majesty's Government will recognize the United Nations Commission as the authority with which to make an agreement regarding the transfer of the assets of the Government of Palestine."

​

The Palestine Commission has adopted the following statement of policy with respect to the continuity of employment of present employees of the Mandatory administration in Palestine, and has requested the Mandatory Power to publish the statement or circulate it to all employees of the present Government in Palestine:

"The United Nations Palestine Commission, being under the terms of the resolution of the General Assembly responsible for the administration of Palestine immediately following the termination of the Mandate, hereby calls upon all present employees of the Palestine administration to continue their service with the successor authority in Palestine when the British Mandate is terminated. It is the policy of the United Nations Palestine commission as the successor authority to maintain services on the same terms and with the same rights for employees as those enjoyed under the Mandatory Government. The Commission requests all present employees of the Palestine Administration to inform at the earliest possible date, the Mandatory Government for communication to the Commission, whether they would be willing to remain in the service of the successor administration of Palestine on such terms."
​

The next meeting of the Commission will be on Monday, March 1, at 3 P.M.
​

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------​

This was a joint release by the UN, the UNPC, and The British Mandatory. It has been published here many times.

In you claim, you say that you have "posted many things saying that Palestine is a state." Well the question becomes:

• If the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic surrendered the Title and Rights of these territories to the Allied Powers, and the Allied Powers maintained positive control of these territories, when did the territories become self-government and establish a state?
​

And please don't use the All Palestine Government as your claim. It could not even establish self-government in the Gaza Strip. It was dissolved in 1959 by its creator (Egypt).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Challenger, P F Tinmore, et al,

You both are having troube with your memory.

Interesting. If I might make an observation, if Palestine was a legal entity and had a government seperate and distinct from HBMG, then it qualifies as a state, does it not? Even under Montevideo requirements Palestine had a territory, a population, and a government. Just because that government was controlled by a foreign power (Britain) does not in any way detract from it's status as a state.

(COMMENT)

Yes, this is a bit complicate for you.

Great Britain (HBMG) is a government that covered the entire British Empire. And in being part of the British Empire, you have that citizenship,

In the first half of the 20th Century (1900 -1949) de facto citizenship of the United Kingdom and the British Empire (AKA British Subjects), was any person born in the United Kingdom or the British Empire, including the independent dominions (but not including protectorates). Palestine was a territory under a Mandate issued by the League of Nations (LoN) in agreement with the Allied Powers that held the Title and Rights.

That is a very different thing being a Citizen of the territory under the Mandate for Palestine, a territory subject to the Order in Council and the Allied Powers have agreed to entrust to a Mandatory, selected by Allied Power, the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them. The Mandate was monitored and supervised by the Permanent Mandates Commission of the LoN.

Mandate

League of Nations
Written by: The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica
Alternative title: mandated territory

Mandate, an authorization granted by the League of Nations to a member nation to govern a formerGerman or Turkish colony. The territory was called a mandated territory, or mandate.
​

Great Britain maintained and acted as the Government of Palestine,; but it was not a colonial holding and was not under British Sovereignty.

BIG DIFFERENCE!

Do not confuse the de facto "Government of Palestine" as a government by the Arab inhabitants and for the Arab inhabitance. In fact, the High Commissioner has governed Palestine with the aid of Councils consisting exclusively of British officials during the entire period between 1922 and 1948. Every attempt by the High Commissioner to engage the Arab Palestinians to establish an Arab Agency was declined on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people.

I have posted many things saying that Palestine is a state. You have posted nothing saying that it is not.

(COMMENT)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------​

UN Palestine Commission
27 February 1948

UNITED NATIONS
Department of Public Information
Press and Publications Bureau
Lake Success, New York
​

Press Release PAL/138
27 February 1948
​

UK MEMORANDUM NAMES COMMISSION
AS SUCCESSOR GOVERNMENT
​

The Government of the United Kingdom, in a memorandum on the "Legal Meaning of the Termination of the Mandate", has advised the United Nations Palestine Commission that so far the Mandatory Power is concerned the United Nations Commission will be the Government of Palestine after 15 May 1948.

The memorandum, transmitted to the Commission by the British Delegation to the United Nations, sets forth the position of the Mandatory Power with respect to the question of the successor government in Palestine after the termination of the British mandate. Pertinent excerpts from the memorandum are as follows:

"Palestine is today a legal entity but it is not a sovereign state. Palestine is a territory administered under mandate by His Majesty (in respect of the United Kingdom), who is entirely responsible both for its internal administration and for its foreign affairs.
"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.
"Where the sovereignty of Palestine lies at the present time is 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.

"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.

"His Majesty's Government will recognize the United Nations Commission as the authority with which to make an agreement regarding the transfer of the assets of the Government of Palestine."

​

The Palestine Commission has adopted the following statement of policy with respect to the continuity of employment of present employees of the Mandatory administration in Palestine, and has requested the Mandatory Power to publish the statement or circulate it to all employees of the present Government in Palestine:

"The United Nations Palestine Commission, being under the terms of the resolution of the General Assembly responsible for the administration of Palestine immediately following the termination of the Mandate, hereby calls upon all present employees of the Palestine administration to continue their service with the successor authority in Palestine when the British Mandate is terminated. It is the policy of the United Nations Palestine commission as the successor authority to maintain services on the same terms and with the same rights for employees as those enjoyed under the Mandatory Government. The Commission requests all present employees of the Palestine Administration to inform at the earliest possible date, the Mandatory Government for communication to the Commission, whether they would be willing to remain in the service of the successor administration of Palestine on such terms."
​

The next meeting of the Commission will be on Monday, March 1, at 3 P.M.​

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------​

This was a joint release by the UN, the UNPC, and The British Mandatory. It has been published here many times.

In you claim, you say that you have "posted many things saying that Palestine is a state." Well the question becomes:

• If the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic surrendered the Title and Rights of these territories to the Allied Powers, and the Allied Powers maintained positive control of these territories, when did the territories become self-government and establish a state?
​

And please don't use the All Palestine Government as your claim. It could not even establish self-government in the Gaza Strip. It was dissolved in 1959 by its creator (Egypt).

Most Respectfully,
R

"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.​

Does that mean that it is a non self governing territory?

By immediately do they mean a planned sovereign state in the future?

 

[Challenger]

Challenger, P F Tinmore, et al,

You both are having troube with your memory.

Not at all, I never said sovereign. Interesting that the government of Palestine was to be handed over to the U.N. so that means an infrastructure of government existed to be passed on, had the Zionists not seceded.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Challenger, P F Tinmore, et al,

You both are having troube with your memory.

Not at all, I never said sovereign. Interesting that the government of Palestine was to be handed over to the U.N. so that means an infrastructure of government existed to be passed on, had the Zionists not seceded.

Does this mean hat Israel stole the land from the UN?