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

[Phoenall]

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.

Read it again rat boy and see that the government was a mandatory until such a time as the people could form a nation and sh0ow self determination. It was not a state until 1948 when the Jews declared independence

There are multiple UN resolutions stating the the Palestinians have the right to self determination.

Could you post some stating the same things for the Jews?

Why as it is a right of everyone, and as you know UN resolutions are not international law but recommendations.



UNPO: Self-determination



The principle of self-determination is prominently embodied in Article I of the Charter of the United Nations. Earlier it was explicitly embraced by US President Woodrow Wilson, by Lenin and others, and became the guiding principle for the reconstruction of Europe following World War I. The principle was incorporated into the 1941 Atlantic Charter and the Dumbarton Oaks proposals which evolved into the United Nations Charter. Its inclusion in the UN Charter marks the universal recognition of the principle as fundamental to the maintenance of friendly relations and peace among states. It is recognized as a right of all peoples in the first article common to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which both entered into force in 1976. 1 Paragraph 1 of this Article provides:

All peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.






So when will the Palestinians exercise this right and take control of their own lives, instead of making false claims that they are refused this right. Who refuses them this right, and how is it refused. You need to look up what it means before making any more stupid claims.

All peoples have the right to self-determination.=​

What is the meaning of peoples?

What ever you want it to mean, in this case it means everyone in the whole world has the right to free determination. Not everyone in the world wants to take up that right. A good example is the Palestinians who have refused to take it up and instead want it handing to them on a plate. Then to be run by another power so they can complain their right to free determination has been taken away.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, oh of course. Remember, the sovereignty of Israel is not dependent on the Hostile Arab Palestinian recognition.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, so exactly where does it say that?

Lands absorbed in 1949, were Armistice Arrangements pursuant to UN Mediation.​

Not true. All of Palestine was still Palestine according to the armistice agreements.

Don't forget that Israel signed those agreements.

(COMMENT)

Remember, each Armistice agreement is between "ISRAEL" and some other Arab Aggressor Nation. It does not matter what the Hostile Arabs call the demarcation. What matters is who exercises sovereign control. The adoption of not recognizing Israel is a well known ploy. Don't fool yourself. The Lebanese, Syrians, Jordanians, and Egyptian that surround Israel knows exactly who controls what borders. And if that is not clear, the read the treaties. The International Boundaries are discussed in detail and are recognized even now.

Most Respectfully,
R

Remember, each Armistice agreement is between "ISRAEL"...​

Misleading. The agreements were Egyptian-Israeli, etc.. A place called Israel was not mentioned in the armistice agreements.

(COMMENT)

The Armistice Arrangement is a temporary measure pending a Treaty.

It is really the treaty you have to be concerned with since that are no Armistice Lines pertaining to the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

• 
  Article II
  
  • 
    Treaty of Peace between the Arab Republic of Egypt and the State of Israel, 26 March 1979
  
  The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine, as shown on the map at Annex II, without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip. The Parties recognize this boundary as inviolable. Each will respect the territorial integrity of the other, including their territorial waters and airspace.
  

Article 3 - International Boundary

Treaty of Peace between the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the State of Israel​

1. The international boundary between Israel and Jordan is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I(a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and co-ordinates specified therein.
2. The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure and recognised international boundary between Israel and Jordan, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.

3. The parties recognise the international boundary, as well as each other's territory, territorial waters and airspace, as inviolable, and will respect and comply with them.
​

I would like to see the Treaty Palestine has to demonstrate its borders.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is an interesting question.

"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?

(COMMENT)

• Mandates and Trusteeship at the turn into the 20th Century, different than States and Protectorates.

Mandates (like the Mandate for Palestine) had governments as usually assigned by the Allied Powers. What make the Mandate for Palestine, out of the several British Mandate and Protectorates (9 in the Arab Realm). I say that with the reservation that not all Mandates are the same as the Post Great War Mandates. The current UN Mandate for Iraq is a very different Mandate from that of the post-WWI era.

To ANSWER the first Question:

• In the case of the territory of Palestine, the 1922-1948 Mandate: non-self governing only meant that the Government of Palestine was not that established by the inhabitants. And it was the continuous rejection of the regional Arabs to participate in the development of governance pursuant to Article 22 "the tutelage of such peoples." During the period 1922 and 1923 the High Commissioner attempted to entice participation.
• THUS: It was not that they Arab Palestinians were prevented from self-governance, but rather, the declined to take such steps as preparatory for self-governance and Independence.
​

to ANSWER the second Question:

• The language of "immediate" depends on the Arab Palestinian participation in Article 22 Criteria. In fact, they actually did use language that would suggest Independence and Sovereignty at some point in the future. ALL the territory situated outside the frontiers of Turkey were, at some point, to be granted independence. But as Article 16 Treaty of Lausanne points out, "the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned." The Allied Powers held the Title and Rights to these territories and would decide on the partitioning; and Arab and Jews gradually receiving greater and greater levels of autonomy until total self-governance is achieved. And in early 1948, the Arab Higher Committee --- AGAIN --- rejected to participate in the "Steps Preparatory to Independence."
​

The Arab Palestinians seldom, if ever, accept the consequences of their actions. In this case, the Hostile Arab Palestinians declined to participate --- THEREFORE they have no real cause for complaint.

Most Respectfully,
R

And it was the continuous rejection of the regional Arabs to participate in the development of governance pursuant to Article 22 "the tutelage of such peoples."​

Load of crap, Rocco. The Palestinians were blocked at every turn for self governance.

Who blocked them and how were they blocked, time to state the facts to see if you do understand what is meant. As far as the world is concerned the Palestinians have blocked themselves from ever governing themselves, and prefer to allow outside influence to do it for them.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, so exactly where does it say that?

Lands absorbed in 1949, were Armistice Arrangements pursuant to UN Mediation.​

Not true. All of Palestine was still Palestine according to the armistice agreements.

Don't forget that Israel signed those agreements.

(COMMENT)

Remember, each Armistice agreement is between "ISRAEL" and some other Arab Aggressor Nation. It does not matter what the Hostile Arabs call the demarcation. What matters is who exercises sovereign control. The adoption of not recognizing Israel is a well known ploy. Don't fool yourself. The Lebanese, Syrians, Jordanians, and Egyptian that surround Israel knows exactly who controls what borders. And if that is not clear, the read the treaties. The International Boundaries are discussed in detail and are recognized even now.

Most Respectfully,
R

Remember, each Armistice agreement is between "ISRAEL"...​

Misleading. The agreements were Egyptian-Israeli, etc.. A place called Israel was not mentioned in the armistice agreements.

You contradict yourself if you look. If no place called Israel was mentioned then why is it in the heading. It was Palestine that was never mentioned as Palestine was never a nation until the arab muslims made the first step in 1988

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, oh of course. Remember, the sovereignty of Israel is not dependent on the Hostile Arab Palestinian recognition.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, so exactly where does it say that?

Lands absorbed in 1949, were Armistice Arrangements pursuant to UN Mediation.​

Not true. All of Palestine was still Palestine according to the armistice agreements.

Don't forget that Israel signed those agreements.

(COMMENT)

Remember, each Armistice agreement is between "ISRAEL" and some other Arab Aggressor Nation. It does not matter what the Hostile Arabs call the demarcation. What matters is who exercises sovereign control. The adoption of not recognizing Israel is a well known ploy. Don't fool yourself. The Lebanese, Syrians, Jordanians, and Egyptian that surround Israel knows exactly who controls what borders. And if that is not clear, the read the treaties. The International Boundaries are discussed in detail and are recognized even now.

Most Respectfully,
R

Remember, each Armistice agreement is between "ISRAEL"...​

Misleading. The agreements were Egyptian-Israeli, etc.. A place called Israel was not mentioned in the armistice agreements.

(COMMENT)

The Armistice Arrangement is a temporary measure pending a Treaty.

It is really the treaty you have to be concerned with since that are no Armistice Lines pertaining to the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

• 
  Article II
  
  • 
    Treaty of Peace between the Arab Republic of Egypt and the State of Israel, 26 March 1979
  
  
  The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine, as shown on the map at Annex II, without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip. The Parties recognize this boundary as inviolable. Each will respect the territorial integrity of the other, including their territorial waters and airspace.

Article 3 - International Boundary

Treaty of Peace between the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the State of Israel​

1. The international boundary between Israel and Jordan is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I(a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and co-ordinates specified therein.
2. The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure and recognised international boundary between Israel and Jordan, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.

3. The parties recognise the international boundary, as well as each other's territory, territorial waters and airspace, as inviolable, and will respect and comply with them.​

I would like to see the Treaty Palestine has to demonstrate its borders.

Most Respectfully,
R

So would I and billions of other people, just so we can point out that there are no treaties granting palestine the nation any borders.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Not quite.

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?

(COMMENT)

You have to examine the entire timeline. The territory that is called the 1967 occupied Palestinian territory (oPt) was not taken from the Allied Powers or the Arab Palestinians.

• The West Bank was occupied by Israel from sovereign Jordanian territory.
• The Gaza Strip was occupied by Israel from Egyptian Military Governorship.

The original land outline in Part II Section B (GA Res-181) was, in coordination with the Successor Government, subject to Jewish Self-Determination on the termination of the Mandate [Chapter I- Article 1(2) of the CHarter] after completion of the Steps Preparatory to Independence.

Lands absorbed in 1949, were Armistice Arrangements pursuant to UN Mediation.

• In the case of the West Bank, the territory was delimited as Israel under the Treaty of 1994.
• In the case of the Gaza Strip, the territory was delimited as Israel under the Treaty of 1979.

Again, the Hostile Arab Palestinians declined to participate in a Peace Treaty following the Khartoum Resolution passed by the Arab League in the wake of the 1967 war is famous for the "Three Nos" articulated in the third paragraph: No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, and no negotiations with Israel.

Most Respectfully,
R

Lands absorbed in 1949, were Armistice Arrangements pursuant to UN Mediation.​

Not true. All of Palestine was still Palestine according to the armistice agreements.

Don't forget that Israel signed those agreements.

LINK ?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, this is an undefined term.

All peoples have the right to self-determination.=​

What is the meaning of peoples?

(COMMENT)

I think this is a red herring approach to derail the discussion.

• See The meaning of indigenous peoples.

I attach this every time. If it does not included so facet or fraction of people, please let me know.

Most Respectfully,
R

How does that relate to the discussion at hand?

It answers your question, so you play the idiot again and ask how it answers your question.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, so exactly where does it say that?

Lands absorbed in 1949, were Armistice Arrangements pursuant to UN Mediation.​

Not true. All of Palestine was still Palestine according to the armistice agreements.

Don't forget that Israel signed those agreements.

(COMMENT)

Remember, each Armistice agreement is between "ISRAEL" and some other Arab Aggressor Nation. It does not matter what the Hostile Arabs call the demarcation. What matters is who exercises sovereign control. The adoption of not recognizing Israel is a well known ploy. Don't fool yourself. The Lebanese, Syrians, Jordanians, and Egyptian that surround Israel knows exactly who controls what borders. And if that is not clear, the read the treaties. The International Boundaries are discussed in detail and are recognized even now.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are confusing military control (occupation) with sovereignty. Military occupations do not acquire sovereignty.

So the arab muslims did not acquire sovereignty over Jerusalem in 1949 only to lose it in 1967 ?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, so exactly where does it say that?

Lands absorbed in 1949, were Armistice Arrangements pursuant to UN Mediation.​

Not true. All of Palestine was still Palestine according to the armistice agreements.

Don't forget that Israel signed those agreements.

(COMMENT)

Remember, each Armistice agreement is between "ISRAEL" and some other Arab Aggressor Nation. It does not matter what the Hostile Arabs call the demarcation. What matters is who exercises sovereign control. The adoption of not recognizing Israel is a well known ploy. Don't fool yourself. The Lebanese, Syrians, Jordanians, and Egyptian that surround Israel knows exactly who controls what borders. And if that is not clear, the read the treaties. The International Boundaries are discussed in detail and are recognized even now.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are confusing military control (occupation) with sovereignty. Military occupations do not acquire sovereignty.

Stop trying to be clever, you don't have the intelligence. In 1949 the partition plan folded as far as the arab muslims were concerned and they lost the chance to hold sovereignty over land that was to be theirs. This land passed into Israeli ownership and sovereignty by default, and once again it took you lot a long time to realise that you had lost again.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, that is your opinion.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, so exactly where does it say that?

Lands absorbed in 1949, were Armistice Arrangements pursuant to UN Mediation.​

Not true. All of Palestine was still Palestine according to the armistice agreements.

Don't forget that Israel signed those agreements.

(COMMENT)

Remember, each Armistice agreement is between "ISRAEL" and some other Arab Aggressor Nation. It does not matter what the Hostile Arabs call the demarcation. What matters is who exercises sovereign control. The adoption of not recognizing Israel is a well known ploy. Don't fool yourself. The Lebanese, Syrians, Jordanians, and Egyptian that surround Israel knows exactly who controls what borders. And if that is not clear, the read the treaties. The International Boundaries are discussed in detail and are recognized even now.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are confusing military control (occupation) with sovereignty. Military occupations do not acquire sovereignty.

(COMMENT)

SOVEREIGNTY
In the context of Rights and Duties of States, the Restatement of the Law Third states:

"'Sovereignty' is a term used in many senses and is much abused. As used here, it implies a state's lawful control over it's territory generally to the exclusion of other states, authority to govern in that territory, and authority to apply law there."


Most Respectfully,
R

As used here, it implies a state's lawful control over it's territory...​

Which leads us back to the question that you always dance around.

When did Israel ever legally acquire any territory?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Not quite.

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?

(COMMENT)

You have to examine the entire timeline. The territory that is called the 1967 occupied Palestinian territory (oPt) was not taken from the Allied Powers or the Arab Palestinians.

• The West Bank was occupied by Israel from sovereign Jordanian territory.
• The Gaza Strip was occupied by Israel from Egyptian Military Governorship.

The original land outline in Part II Section B (GA Res-181) was, in coordination with the Successor Government, subject to Jewish Self-Determination on the termination of the Mandate [Chapter I- Article 1(2) of the CHarter] after completion of the Steps Preparatory to Independence.

Lands absorbed in 1949, were Armistice Arrangements pursuant to UN Mediation.

• In the case of the West Bank, the territory was delimited as Israel under the Treaty of 1994.
• In the case of the Gaza Strip, the territory was delimited as Israel under the Treaty of 1979.

Again, the Hostile Arab Palestinians declined to participate in a Peace Treaty following the Khartoum Resolution passed by the Arab League in the wake of the 1967 war is famous for the "Three Nos" articulated in the third paragraph: No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, and no negotiations with Israel.

Most Respectfully,
R

Lands absorbed in 1949, were Armistice Arrangements pursuant to UN Mediation.​

Not true. All of Palestine was still Palestine according to the armistice agreements.

Don't forget that Israel signed those agreements.

LINK ?

The Avalon Project : Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949
The Avalon Project : Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, March 23, 1949
The Avalon Project : Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, April 3, 1949
The Avalon Project : Israeli-Syrian General Armistice Agreement, July 20, 1949

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Ah yessss... This is the ye olde'Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty question. We've been around this track a couple of time.

The territorialization of international system with the Munster and Osnabruck Treaties respectively, represents undoubtedly the unending legacy of the Peace of Westphalia. It suffices to think to Article 2 (1) of UN Charter which spells out the ‘sovereign equality’ of Member States, as the fundamental principle on which the UN has been built upon. Therefore, one can even argue that the international order, so far, is essentially a territorial order. The great number of territorial disputes (territorial and maritime), as well as the fact that they represent a significant part of all the international arbitral awards, confirms the existence of a true ‘territory obsession’.
SOURCE: Theories on Territorial Sovereignty: A Reappraisal

So, this time, I'd thought I'd put my Sharia (Islamic Law) & what little law Law knowledge, Skills and Abilities (KSAs) to work.

As far as the main features of the territory are concerned, it is generally recognized by the doctrine and consolidated practice that the territory must be:

(a) stable (permanence of the residing population),
(b) delimited (There exist certain States whose borders are not clearly limited in their entirety and nevertheless their existence is not put into question.)
(c) continuous (refers to the continuity of State’s territory).
​

As used here, it implies a state's lawful control over it's territory...

Which leads us back to the question that you always dance around.

When did Israel ever legally acquire any territory?

(COMMENT)

I've never really danced around this question. I just get the impression that you don't like the answer.

• The right of a State over a territory – implying the power to dispose of it – is an absolute right since it is opposable erga omnes and it is also concrete (real), for it refers to goods or things. In the case of under Mandate, the "TITLE and RIGHTS" transferred from the Ottoman Empire and Turkish Republic through Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne. In addition to the TITLE and Rights to the territory, the treaty also acknowledge the privilege of the Allied Powers to determine the future of the territory.

SO: The first transfer from the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic was Article 16, Treaty of Lausanne, to the Allied Powers.

SO: This second transfer came when the Allied Powers (having the Title and Rights) agreed to select His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine. The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power; EXCEPT as agreed upon by the Members of the League and explicitly defined by the Council of the League of Nations;.

SO: The third transfer was effected one the announcement of the termination of the Mandate and the withdrawal of the Mandatory Power. The successor to the Mandatory Power was announced by the UN in alignment with the adopted instructions from General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) as the UN Palestine Commission.

SO: The fourth transfer was effected when, during the period between November 1947 and May 1948, the Provisional Government and Jewish Agency worked to accomplish the Steps Preparatory to Independence and coordinate its intentions to Declare Independence immediately upon termination of the Mandate.
​

At the time of the Armistice Agreements in 1949, Israel (at the time of the cessation of hostilities) assumed control of territory abandoned by Hostile Arab Forces in flight or under close pursuit and contact --- up to the FEBA; as designated by the Armistice Commission and Mediator.

This does not include the acquisition of abandon Jordanian sovereign territory (West Bank) on 1 August 1988, falling into the only remaining power (Israel). However, unlike Jordan, Israel did not annex the territory.

Most Respectfully,
R​

 

[montelatici]

The only hostile forces were those of the Jewish terrorist colonizers. The native people were simply defending themselves from the European invaders.

 

[Hollie]

The only hostile forces were those of the Jewish terrorist colonizers. The native people were simply defending themselves from the European invaders.

The invading / colonizing Turks were not defending themselves.

What were the Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese squatters defending?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Ah yessss... This is the ye olde'Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty question. We've been around this track a couple of time.

The territorialization of international system with the Munster and Osnabruck Treaties respectively, represents undoubtedly the unending legacy of the Peace of Westphalia. It suffices to think to Article 2 (1) of UN Charter which spells out the ‘sovereign equality’ of Member States, as the fundamental principle on which the UN has been built upon. Therefore, one can even argue that the international order, so far, is essentially a territorial order. The great number of territorial disputes (territorial and maritime), as well as the fact that they represent a significant part of all the international arbitral awards, confirms the existence of a true ‘territory obsession’.
SOURCE: Theories on Territorial Sovereignty: A Reappraisal

​

So, this time, I'd thought I'd put my Sharia (Islamic Law) & what little law Law knowledge, Skills and Abilities (KSAs) to work.

As far as the main features of the territory are concerned, it is generally recognized by the doctrine and consolidated practice that the territory must be:

(a) stable (permanence of the residing population),
(b) delimited (There exist certain States whose borders are not clearly limited in their entirety and nevertheless their existence is not put into question.)
(c) continuous (refers to the continuity of State’s territory).
​

As used here, it implies a state's lawful control over it's territory...

Which leads us back to the question that you always dance around.

When did Israel ever legally acquire any territory?

(COMMENT)

I've never really danced around this question. I just get the impression that you don't like the answer.

• The right of a State over a territory – implying the power to dispose of it – is an absolute right since it is opposable erga omnes and it is also concrete (real), for it refers to goods or things. In the case of under Mandate, the "TITLE and RIGHTS" transferred from the Ottoman Empire and Turkish Republic through Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne. In addition to the TITLE and Rights to the territory, the treaty also acknowledge the privilege of the Allied Powers to determine the future of the territory.

SO: The first transfer from the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic was Article 16, Treaty of Lausanne, to the Allied Powers.

SO: This second transfer came when the Allied Powers (having the Title and Rights) agreed to select His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine. The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power; EXCEPT as agreed upon by the Members of the League and explicitly defined by the Council of the League of Nations;.

SO: The third transfer was effected one the announcement of the termination of the Mandate and the withdrawal of the Mandatory Power. The successor to the Mandatory Power was announced by the UN in alignment with the adopted instructions from General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) as the UN Palestine Commission.

SO: The fourth transfer was effected when, during the period between November 1947 and May 1948, the Provisional Government and Jewish Agency worked to accomplish the Steps Preparatory to Independence and coordinate its intentions to Declare Independence immediately upon termination of the Mandate.
​

At the time of the Armistice Agreements in 1949, Israel (at the time of the cessation of hostilities) assumed control of territory abandoned by Hostile Arab Forces in flight or under close pursuit and contact --- up to the FEBA; as designated by the Armistice Commission and Mediator.

This does not include the acquisition of abandon Jordanian sovereign territory (West Bank) on 1 August 1988, falling into the only remaining power (Israel). However, unlike Jordan, Israel did not annex the territory.

Most Respectfully,
R​

SO: The first transfer from the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic was Article 16, Treaty of Lausanne, to the Allied Powers.​

However, neither the LoN nor the Mandate annexed or otherwise claimed title to that territory. They held it in trust for the inhabitants who were the citizens of Palestine.

So, the remainder of your chain of succession is invalid.

 

[montelatici]

The only hostile forces were those of the Jewish terrorist colonizers. The native people were simply defending themselves from the European invaders.

The invading / colonizing Turks were not defending themselves.

What were the Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese squatters defending?

The Turks were long gone. There were no Egyptians, Syrians or Lebanese, they were in Egypt, Syria and Lebanon respectively.

 

[Hollie]

The only hostile forces were those of the Jewish terrorist colonizers. The native people were simply defending themselves from the European invaders.

The invading / colonizing Turks were not defending themselves.

What were the Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese squatters defending?

The Turks were long gone. There were no Egyptians, Syrians or Lebanese, they were in Egypt, Syria and Lebanon respectively.

The invading / colonizing Turks were long gone in the early 1920's.

The invading / colonizing Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese squatters never left until they were pushed aside by the invading Arab-Moslem armies much later.

 

[montelatici]

The only hostile forces were those of the Jewish terrorist colonizers. The native people were simply defending themselves from the European invaders.

The invading / colonizing Turks were not defending themselves.

What were the Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese squatters defending?

The Turks were long gone. There were no Egyptians, Syrians or Lebanese, they were in Egypt, Syria and Lebanon respectively.

The invading / colonizing Turks were long gone in the early 1920's.

The invading / colonizing Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese squatters never left until they were pushed aside by the invading Arab-Moslem armies much later.

There were no colonizing Egyptians, Syrians or Lebanese. The only invaders, colonizers and squatters were the Europeans.

 

[Hollie]

The only hostile forces were those of the Jewish terrorist colonizers. The native people were simply defending themselves from the European invaders.

The invading / colonizing Turks were not defending themselves.

What were the Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese squatters defending?

The Turks were long gone. There were no Egyptians, Syrians or Lebanese, they were in Egypt, Syria and Lebanon respectively.

The invading / colonizing Turks were long gone in the early 1920's.

The invading / colonizing Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese squatters never left until they were pushed aside by the invading Arab-Moslem armies much later.

There were no colonizing Egyptians, Syrians or Lebanese. The only invaders, colonizers and squatters were the Europeans.

Actually, there were invading / colonizing Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese squatters. Don't let your ignorance of history make your rambling so trivial.

 

[montelatici]

You are just making things up. But that is par for the course for you. You have nothing to back up any of your assertions, just your fantasies garnered from Zionist propaganda. But you know that.