Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2

[Shusha]

It is all so simple...Just give the Palestinians their land

The trick, of course, is determining which land should be "their" land (territory under their own separate sovereignty).

the European Zionist Type who are converts to Judiaism but are other peoples from central asia originally

The silly Khazar theory has been thoroughly debunked. The Jewish people have survived a thousands-year-long Diaspora. It included intermarriage, long years living away from their homeland, changes in their religion and culture. But all Jews are Jews. And the only people who have a right to decide who is and who is not a Jew are the Jewish people.

This is EXACTLY the same problem I have with JoelT1 and most of the other pro-Palestinian posters here -- they reject the very existence of the people on the other side of the conflict.

The Question I ask Shusha is,why do you Hate the cousins of the Jews,the Palestinians,what have they ever done to real Jews,who they lived WITH,... IN harmony FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS??????

I have no hate for the Palestinians. I am one of their strongest supporters on these boards. I think they SHOULD have sovereignty over territory and self-determination. The sooner the better for everyone. (And no, they did not live in harmony for thousands of years. Like in many places, the Jews suffered under Arab rule. The problems occurred when the Jewish people asked for, and received international recognition for, a return to their homeland and a restoration of their sovereignty. And yet, why shouldn't the Jewish people have that?

 

[Shusha]

So you are saying that people follow the sovereignty but the sovereignty vanished? The Mandate was an administration. It had no sovereignty. The sovereignty stayed with the people

People have no sovereignty. States have sovereignty. In the absence of a State, such as the Mandate period, the people are administered by another sovereign. But they have no sovereignty of their own until they develop it and meet the four criteria of a State (a people, a territory, a government and capacity to interact with other States). The Arab Palestinians, as separate from the Jewish Palestinians, have not yet met this criteria. They are getting there, though. Slow as it is.

People may have a right to self-determination in international law, but the process of turning that right into a sovereignty is not clear or complete (hence all the conflicts in the world over this process).

But your assumption that sovereignty passed immediately from the Ottoman Empire to "Palestine" has no basis in law or reality.

 

[Shusha]

Deep ties to the land itself ... for many Palestinians it is living there and passing the same parcels down through the generations.

I agree entirely with the rest of your post, so I just quoted this part. I don't disagree with it, but I want to point out how problematic it is for those people's future.

Its NOT actually a problem of sovereignty or self-determination -- its fundamentally a conflict between small subsistence farming and urbanization. That way of life is inevitably changing. The solutions aren't found in who has sovereignty over that territory -- they are found in how to balance agriculture and urbanization. Does a State continue to protect those agricultural areas? Should they marked off as farmland unavailable to building? What do you do about the growth of those small villages and family farms? How do you handle ownership? Is the parcel to be kept whole, and each owner owns only a share of the production? Is that ownership passed down collectively to all heirs? Only those heirs who remain resident on the property? Can the solutions be different, based on the wishes of each village or collection of farms? These problems are difficult, but not unsolvable.


However, that said, the Arab Palestinians are USING this conflict between agriculture and urbanization in order to attempt to further their political cause. They are claiming land that traditionally would not have been "theirs" as "theirs" and labeling the land further as "(Arab) Palestinian land".

 

[JoelT1]

√ There is a huge difference between having "citizenship" and having "sovereignty."

So, sovereignty is not for the citizens. It belongs to some assholes from Europe.

Link?

Jesus and his followers were European? LOL

 

[JoelT1]

Coyote

Thank you for reminding me to call out all the hate, and not just one side's.

Here's the compelling argument which I think can be found here. Part of self-determination is the right to self-identification. Many Arab Palestinians identify strongly with both Jordanians and Syrians, and claim that all three are the same people. In fact, many argue that the current problems of those peoples are a direct result of the artificial separation of what really is ONE people.

This opens up the potential for a number of different solutions to the Arab Palestinians plight. We are not just restricted to a tiny piece of land adjoining Israel if we think in this way. There are other options. And it might provide all sorts of benefits to Arabs in all three/four places.

It is all so simple...Just give the Palestinians their land........and Joe The Palestinians are not the same as other Arabs as they are a Semitic People like some Jews are........But not all Jews of course(the European Zionist Type who are converts to Judiaism but are other peoples from central asia originally)The Question I ask Shusha is,why do you Hate the cousins of the Jews,the Palestinians,what have they ever done to real Jews,who they lived WITH,... IN harmony FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS??????obviously that changed after 1948...due to Terrorism,Murder and mayhem by the Jews 1948 onwards.../TOR

The Palestinians are a mixture of peoples that include Arabs and other peoples who have been in that area since ancient times.

I'm not sure why you single out the "European Zionist Type" as if they are a separate species. They aren't. All peoples who where split in migrations or overrun in conquests would most likely would have to intermarry to survive. What defines them as a people though is the continuity of a culture more then genetics. If you are going to attempt to split them that way then you have to recognize the same in the Palestinians who's population includes relatively recent immigrants from other Arab areas.

Jews were originally called palestinians, by the British who made up the word. Britain temporarily called the British Mandate “palestine” which ceased to exist in 1948 with Israeli statehood. Long after Jews became Israelis, Arabs, looking around for something to call themselves, adopted the bogus palestinian identity

Palestine originated as a Roman name imposed on Jews, referring to Philistines who were Greek. Arabs did not populate Israel until 500+ years later

 

[abi]

Jews were originally called palestinians, by the British who made up the word.

Palestine originated as a Roman name imposed on Jews

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You have twisted this for so long, you are beginning to believe it.

The customary international law of the time was that the “the population follows the change of sovereignty in matters of
nationality.” BUT, there was no sovereignty under the trusteeship of the Mandate.

So you are saying that people follow the sovereignty but the sovereignty vanished? The Mandate was an administration. It had no sovereignty. The sovereignty stayed with the people

(CASE EXAMPLES)

I am an American Citizen in Ohio. If I step over the border into Ontario, I am still an American Citizen. In the first case, I am an American in Sovereign US Territory. In the second case, I am an American in sovereign Canadian Territory.

On March 30th. 1867, the US purchased the Alaskan Territory from Russia. On March 30, the people of Alaska were Russian under Russian Sovereignty. On April 1st, the Territory was under US Sovereignty. The Treaty of Cessions (Article IIII) stipulated that:

The inhabitants of the ceded territory, according to their choice, reserving their natural allegiance, may return to Russia within three years; but if they should prefer to remain in the ceded territory, they, with the exception of uncivilized native tribes, shall be admitted to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States, and shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property, and religion. The uncivilized tribes will be subject to such laws and regulations as the United States may, from time to time, adopt in regard to aboriginal tribes of that country.​

Article III was a variant of self-determination.

Citizenship follows Sovereignty; sovereignty does not follow citizenship.

(COMMENT)

At the end of the War, the collapse of the Ottoman Empire (1918) and the formality of cession of the territory by the Republic of Turkey (1924), the territory under Mandate was NOT the sovereign territory of any nation.

• ARTICLE I6. Treaty of Lausanne •

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.
​

Article 16 to the Treaty of Lausanne replaced Article 132 in the Treaty of Sevres:

• ARTICLE 132 Treaty of Sevres •

Outside her frontiers as fixed by the present Treaty Turkey hereby renounces in favour of the Principal Allied Powers all rights and title which she could claim on any ground over or concerning any territories outside Europe which are not otherwise disposed of by the present Treaty.

Turkey undertakes to recognise and conform to the measures which may be taken now or in the future by the Principal Allied Powers, in agreement where necessary with third Powers, in order to carry the above stipulation into effect.​

Final Point: I did not say that the Mandate had sovereignty. The Allied Powers determined what powers the Mandatory would exercise over the territory. It was always envisioned that the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, placed in the hands of the Mandatory Power.

Some argue that Article 132 was more explicit and some favor Article 16. In any event, the indigenous population (habitual residents) did not transfer with any authority --- none. Even citizenship was determined at the pleasure of the Citizenship Order (and the Election Order before it) written by the Mandatory.

Most Respectfully,
R

On March 30th. 1867, the US purchased the Alaskan Territory from Russia. On March 30, the people of Alaska were Russian under Russian Sovereignty. On April 1st, the Territory was under US Sovereignty. The Treaty of Cessions (Article IIII) stipulated that:

In some ways these are different and in some ways they are the same. The territory was ceded to another state by purchase. Following international law, the citizens of the predecessor state would become the citizens of the successor state. These citizens would still have sovereignty, however it was to be shared with the other citizens of the state.

they, with the exception of uncivilized native tribes, shall be admitted to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States, and shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property, and religion.

The difference is that Turkey did not cede territory to other existing states. It ceded territory to new states by treaty. States that never existed. Those new states had territory defined by international borders and those people became citizens of their respective states.

Guided​

by the purposes and principles of the Charter,

Recalling its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,

1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:

(a) The right to self-determination without external interference;

(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;

UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237​

 

[JoelT1]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You have twisted this for so long, you are beginning to believe it.

The customary international law of the time was that the “the population follows the change of sovereignty in matters of
nationality.” BUT, there was no sovereignty under the trusteeship of the Mandate.

So you are saying that people follow the sovereignty but the sovereignty vanished? The Mandate was an administration. It had no sovereignty. The sovereignty stayed with the people

(CASE EXAMPLES)

I am an American Citizen in Ohio. If I step over the border into Ontario, I am still an American Citizen. In the first case, I am an American in Sovereign US Territory. In the second case, I am an American in sovereign Canadian Territory.

On March 30th. 1867, the US purchased the Alaskan Territory from Russia. On March 30, the people of Alaska were Russian under Russian Sovereignty. On April 1st, the Territory was under US Sovereignty. The Treaty of Cessions (Article IIII) stipulated that:

The inhabitants of the ceded territory, according to their choice, reserving their natural allegiance, may return to Russia within three years; but if they should prefer to remain in the ceded territory, they, with the exception of uncivilized native tribes, shall be admitted to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States, and shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property, and religion. The uncivilized tribes will be subject to such laws and regulations as the United States may, from time to time, adopt in regard to aboriginal tribes of that country.​

Article III was a variant of self-determination.

Citizenship follows Sovereignty; sovereignty does not follow citizenship.

(COMMENT)

At the end of the War, the collapse of the Ottoman Empire (1918) and the formality of cession of the territory by the Republic of Turkey (1924), the territory under Mandate was NOT the sovereign territory of any nation.

• ARTICLE I6. Treaty of Lausanne •

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.
​

Article 16 to the Treaty of Lausanne replaced Article 132 in the Treaty of Sevres:

• ARTICLE 132 Treaty of Sevres •

Outside her frontiers as fixed by the present Treaty Turkey hereby renounces in favour of the Principal Allied Powers all rights and title which she could claim on any ground over or concerning any territories outside Europe which are not otherwise disposed of by the present Treaty.

Turkey undertakes to recognise and conform to the measures which may be taken now or in the future by the Principal Allied Powers, in agreement where necessary with third Powers, in order to carry the above stipulation into effect.​

Final Point: I did not say that the Mandate had sovereignty. The Allied Powers determined what powers the Mandatory would exercise over the territory. It was always envisioned that the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, placed in the hands of the Mandatory Power.

Some argue that Article 132 was more explicit and some favor Article 16. In any event, the indigenous population (habitual residents) did not transfer with any authority --- none. Even citizenship was determined at the pleasure of the Citizenship Order (and the Election Order before it) written by the Mandatory.

Most Respectfully,
R

On March 30th. 1867, the US purchased the Alaskan Territory from Russia. On March 30, the people of Alaska were Russian under Russian Sovereignty. On April 1st, the Territory was under US Sovereignty. The Treaty of Cessions (Article IIII) stipulated that:

In some ways these are different and in some ways they are the same. The territory was ceded to another state by purchase. Following international law, the citizens of the predecessor state would become the citizens of the successor state. These citizens would still have sovereignty, however it was to be shared with the other citizens of the state.

they, with the exception of uncivilized native tribes, shall be admitted to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States, and shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property, and religion.

The difference is that Turkey did not cede territory to other existing states. It ceded territory to new states by treaty. States that never existed. Those new states had territory defined by international borders and those people became citizens of their respective states.

Guided
by the purposes and principles of the Charter,

Recalling its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,

1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:

(a) The right to self-determination without external interference;

(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;

UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237​

Um, there is no palestinian people. Palestine referred to Philistines who were Greek invaders to ancient Israel

 

[Sixties Fan]

Leaked: The six clauses of the Fatah-Hamas deal

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You have twisted this for so long, you are beginning to believe it.

The customary international law of the time was that the “the population follows the change of sovereignty in matters of
nationality.” BUT, there was no sovereignty under the trusteeship of the Mandate.

So you are saying that people follow the sovereignty but the sovereignty vanished? The Mandate was an administration. It had no sovereignty. The sovereignty stayed with the people

(CASE EXAMPLES)

I am an American Citizen in Ohio. If I step over the border into Ontario, I am still an American Citizen. In the first case, I am an American in Sovereign US Territory. In the second case, I am an American in sovereign Canadian Territory.

On March 30th. 1867, the US purchased the Alaskan Territory from Russia. On March 30, the people of Alaska were Russian under Russian Sovereignty. On April 1st, the Territory was under US Sovereignty. The Treaty of Cessions (Article IIII) stipulated that:

The inhabitants of the ceded territory, according to their choice, reserving their natural allegiance, may return to Russia within three years; but if they should prefer to remain in the ceded territory, they, with the exception of uncivilized native tribes, shall be admitted to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States, and shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property, and religion. The uncivilized tribes will be subject to such laws and regulations as the United States may, from time to time, adopt in regard to aboriginal tribes of that country.​

Article III was a variant of self-determination.

Citizenship follows Sovereignty; sovereignty does not follow citizenship.

(COMMENT)

At the end of the War, the collapse of the Ottoman Empire (1918) and the formality of cession of the territory by the Republic of Turkey (1924), the territory under Mandate was NOT the sovereign territory of any nation.

• ARTICLE I6. Treaty of Lausanne •

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.
​

Article 16 to the Treaty of Lausanne replaced Article 132 in the Treaty of Sevres:

• ARTICLE 132 Treaty of Sevres •

Outside her frontiers as fixed by the present Treaty Turkey hereby renounces in favour of the Principal Allied Powers all rights and title which she could claim on any ground over or concerning any territories outside Europe which are not otherwise disposed of by the present Treaty.

Turkey undertakes to recognise and conform to the measures which may be taken now or in the future by the Principal Allied Powers, in agreement where necessary with third Powers, in order to carry the above stipulation into effect.​

Final Point: I did not say that the Mandate had sovereignty. The Allied Powers determined what powers the Mandatory would exercise over the territory. It was always envisioned that the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, placed in the hands of the Mandatory Power.

Some argue that Article 132 was more explicit and some favor Article 16. In any event, the indigenous population (habitual residents) did not transfer with any authority --- none. Even citizenship was determined at the pleasure of the Citizenship Order (and the Election Order before it) written by the Mandatory.

Most Respectfully,
R

On March 30th. 1867, the US purchased the Alaskan Territory from Russia. On March 30, the people of Alaska were Russian under Russian Sovereignty. On April 1st, the Territory was under US Sovereignty. The Treaty of Cessions (Article IIII) stipulated that:

In some ways these are different and in some ways they are the same. The territory was ceded to another state by purchase. Following international law, the citizens of the predecessor state would become the citizens of the successor state. These citizens would still have sovereignty, however it was to be shared with the other citizens of the state.

they, with the exception of uncivilized native tribes, shall be admitted to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States, and shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property, and religion.

The difference is that Turkey did not cede territory to other existing states. It ceded territory to new states by treaty. States that never existed. Those new states had territory defined by international borders and those people became citizens of their respective states.

Guided
by the purposes and principles of the Charter,

Recalling its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,

1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:

(a) The right to self-determination without external interference;

(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;

UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237​

Um, there is no palestinian people. Palestine referred to Philistines who were Greek invaders to ancient Israel

You and your Israeli talking points are a hoot.

 

[JoelT1]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You have twisted this for so long, you are beginning to believe it.

The customary international law of the time was that the “the population follows the change of sovereignty in matters of
nationality.” BUT, there was no sovereignty under the trusteeship of the Mandate.

So you are saying that people follow the sovereignty but the sovereignty vanished? The Mandate was an administration. It had no sovereignty. The sovereignty stayed with the people

(CASE EXAMPLES)

I am an American Citizen in Ohio. If I step over the border into Ontario, I am still an American Citizen. In the first case, I am an American in Sovereign US Territory. In the second case, I am an American in sovereign Canadian Territory.

On March 30th. 1867, the US purchased the Alaskan Territory from Russia. On March 30, the people of Alaska were Russian under Russian Sovereignty. On April 1st, the Territory was under US Sovereignty. The Treaty of Cessions (Article IIII) stipulated that:

The inhabitants of the ceded territory, according to their choice, reserving their natural allegiance, may return to Russia within three years; but if they should prefer to remain in the ceded territory, they, with the exception of uncivilized native tribes, shall be admitted to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States, and shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property, and religion. The uncivilized tribes will be subject to such laws and regulations as the United States may, from time to time, adopt in regard to aboriginal tribes of that country.​

Article III was a variant of self-determination.

Citizenship follows Sovereignty; sovereignty does not follow citizenship.

(COMMENT)

At the end of the War, the collapse of the Ottoman Empire (1918) and the formality of cession of the territory by the Republic of Turkey (1924), the territory under Mandate was NOT the sovereign territory of any nation.

• ARTICLE I6. Treaty of Lausanne •

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.
​

Article 16 to the Treaty of Lausanne replaced Article 132 in the Treaty of Sevres:

• ARTICLE 132 Treaty of Sevres •

Outside her frontiers as fixed by the present Treaty Turkey hereby renounces in favour of the Principal Allied Powers all rights and title which she could claim on any ground over or concerning any territories outside Europe which are not otherwise disposed of by the present Treaty.

Turkey undertakes to recognise and conform to the measures which may be taken now or in the future by the Principal Allied Powers, in agreement where necessary with third Powers, in order to carry the above stipulation into effect.​

Final Point: I did not say that the Mandate had sovereignty. The Allied Powers determined what powers the Mandatory would exercise over the territory. It was always envisioned that the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, placed in the hands of the Mandatory Power.

Some argue that Article 132 was more explicit and some favor Article 16. In any event, the indigenous population (habitual residents) did not transfer with any authority --- none. Even citizenship was determined at the pleasure of the Citizenship Order (and the Election Order before it) written by the Mandatory.

Most Respectfully,
R

On March 30th. 1867, the US purchased the Alaskan Territory from Russia. On March 30, the people of Alaska were Russian under Russian Sovereignty. On April 1st, the Territory was under US Sovereignty. The Treaty of Cessions (Article IIII) stipulated that:

In some ways these are different and in some ways they are the same. The territory was ceded to another state by purchase. Following international law, the citizens of the predecessor state would become the citizens of the successor state. These citizens would still have sovereignty, however it was to be shared with the other citizens of the state.

they, with the exception of uncivilized native tribes, shall be admitted to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States, and shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property, and religion.

The difference is that Turkey did not cede territory to other existing states. It ceded territory to new states by treaty. States that never existed. Those new states had territory defined by international borders and those people became citizens of their respective states.

Guided
by the purposes and principles of the Charter,

Recalling its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,

1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:

(a) The right to self-determination without external interference;

(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;

UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237​

Um, there is no palestinian people. Palestine referred to Philistines who were Greek invaders to ancient Israel

You and your Israeli talking points are a hoot.

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You have twisted this for so long, you are beginning to believe it.

The customary international law of the time was that the “the population follows the change of sovereignty in matters of
nationality.” BUT, there was no sovereignty under the trusteeship of the Mandate.

So you are saying that people follow the sovereignty but the sovereignty vanished? The Mandate was an administration. It had no sovereignty. The sovereignty stayed with the people

(CASE EXAMPLES)

I am an American Citizen in Ohio. If I step over the border into Ontario, I am still an American Citizen. In the first case, I am an American in Sovereign US Territory. In the second case, I am an American in sovereign Canadian Territory.

On March 30th. 1867, the US purchased the Alaskan Territory from Russia. On March 30, the people of Alaska were Russian under Russian Sovereignty. On April 1st, the Territory was under US Sovereignty. The Treaty of Cessions (Article IIII) stipulated that:

The inhabitants of the ceded territory, according to their choice, reserving their natural allegiance, may return to Russia within three years; but if they should prefer to remain in the ceded territory, they, with the exception of uncivilized native tribes, shall be admitted to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States, and shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property, and religion. The uncivilized tribes will be subject to such laws and regulations as the United States may, from time to time, adopt in regard to aboriginal tribes of that country.​

Article III was a variant of self-determination.

Citizenship follows Sovereignty; sovereignty does not follow citizenship.

(COMMENT)

At the end of the War, the collapse of the Ottoman Empire (1918) and the formality of cession of the territory by the Republic of Turkey (1924), the territory under Mandate was NOT the sovereign territory of any nation.

• ARTICLE I6. Treaty of Lausanne •

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.
​

Article 16 to the Treaty of Lausanne replaced Article 132 in the Treaty of Sevres:

• ARTICLE 132 Treaty of Sevres •

Outside her frontiers as fixed by the present Treaty Turkey hereby renounces in favour of the Principal Allied Powers all rights and title which she could claim on any ground over or concerning any territories outside Europe which are not otherwise disposed of by the present Treaty.

Turkey undertakes to recognise and conform to the measures which may be taken now or in the future by the Principal Allied Powers, in agreement where necessary with third Powers, in order to carry the above stipulation into effect.​

Final Point: I did not say that the Mandate had sovereignty. The Allied Powers determined what powers the Mandatory would exercise over the territory. It was always envisioned that the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, placed in the hands of the Mandatory Power.

Some argue that Article 132 was more explicit and some favor Article 16. In any event, the indigenous population (habitual residents) did not transfer with any authority --- none. Even citizenship was determined at the pleasure of the Citizenship Order (and the Election Order before it) written by the Mandatory.

Most Respectfully,
R

On March 30th. 1867, the US purchased the Alaskan Territory from Russia. On March 30, the people of Alaska were Russian under Russian Sovereignty. On April 1st, the Territory was under US Sovereignty. The Treaty of Cessions (Article IIII) stipulated that:

In some ways these are different and in some ways they are the same. The territory was ceded to another state by purchase. Following international law, the citizens of the predecessor state would become the citizens of the successor state. These citizens would still have sovereignty, however it was to be shared with the other citizens of the state.

they, with the exception of uncivilized native tribes, shall be admitted to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States, and shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property, and religion.

The difference is that Turkey did not cede territory to other existing states. It ceded territory to new states by treaty. States that never existed. Those new states had territory defined by international borders and those people became citizens of their respective states.

Guided
by the purposes and principles of the Charter,

Recalling its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,

1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:

(a) The right to self-determination without external interference;

(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;

UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237​

Um, there is no palestinian people. Palestine referred to Philistines who were Greek invaders to ancient Israel

You and your Israeli talking points are a hoot.

Arabs laugh: When were there any palestinians? LOL!

 

[Sixties Fan]

CAMERA Snapshots: Where's the Coverage of Torture in Gaza Prisons?

 

[JoelT1]

Arab-American journalist Joseph Farah: Palestinians Do Not Exist

http://www.wnd.com/2002/07/14501/

 

[thetor]

Coyote

Thank you for reminding me to call out all the hate, and not just one side's.

Here's the compelling argument which I think can be found here. Part of self-determination is the right to self-identification. Many Arab Palestinians identify strongly with both Jordanians and Syrians, and claim that all three are the same people. In fact, many argue that the current problems of those peoples are a direct result of the artificial separation of what really is ONE people.

This opens up the potential for a number of different solutions to the Arab Palestinians plight. We are not just restricted to a tiny piece of land adjoining Israel if we think in this way. There are other options. And it might provide all sorts of benefits to Arabs in all three/four places.

It is all so simple...Just give the Palestinians their land........and Joe The Palestinians are not the same as other Arabs as they are a Semitic People like some Jews are........But not all Jews of course(the European Zionist Type who are converts to Judiaism but are other peoples from central asia originally)The Question I ask Shusha is,why do you Hate the cousins of the Jews,the Palestinians,what have they ever done to real Jews,who they lived WITH,... IN harmony FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS??????obviously that changed after 1948...due to Terrorism,Murder and mayhem by the Jews 1948 onwards.../TOR

The Palestinians are a mixture of peoples that include Arabs and other peoples who have been in that area since ancient times.

I'm not sure why you single out the "European Zionist Type" as if they are a separate species. They aren't. All peoples who where split in migrations or overrun in conquests would most likely would have to intermarry to survive. What defines them as a people though is the continuity of a culture more then genetics. If you are going to attempt to split them that way then you have to recognize the same in the Palestinians who's population includes relatively recent immigrants from other Arab areas.

Zionists,They are a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SPECIES...As most derive from the Askenarzi sic Jews but more importantly,they are only JEWS BY CONVERSION...they have NO link to Palestine at all,because they are a hotch pot of mainly central Asians and others,just converts to Judaism....Only the Shepardic Jews and the Palestinians have direct link to Abraham and both are Semitic People,...Most Zionists and Askanazi Jews are not SEMITIC at all,yet the cry that anyone who challenge them,are Anti-Semetic (it is all crap,they use it as a defence against critique charged against them and their horrible cult)

In fact,Israel is no longer a true Semitic majority any more as none Semetics outnumber Semetic Jews...something often over looked here

By the way Zionists have a Culture of sorts,but dispite all their hollering it is Not the Culture of Real Jews,the Ultras and the Secular Jews...You should Stop trying to make out that Israel is a harmonious Country and that all Jews who live there are in harmony...They are not.That is why many Russian Jews have left Israel for Europe and America....these educated Jews see Israel in a different light to the hordes that invaded Palestine,from 1920 onwards,No Israel is just not for them,they have been to the mountain top and don't like the view

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Remember that Turkey renounced all rights and title to the territories → with the future of these territories being settled → or to be settled → by the parties concerned.

The Arab Palestinians were not a Party to the agreement. At the time of the Treaty of Lausanne, there were no borders to and political territorial entity called "Palestine."

The difference is that Turkey did not cede territory to other existing states. It ceded territory to new states by treaty. States that never existed. Those new states had territory defined by international borders and those people became citizens of their respective states.

Guided
by the purposes and principles of the Charter,

Recalling its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,

1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:

(a) The right to self-determination without external interference;

(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;

UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237​

(COMMENT)

Neither of these are enforceable Resolutions; and neither are laws.

More importantly is that the rights of one cannot interfere with the right of another.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Ventura77]

Not only have the rights of these Palestinian refugees been ignored or dismissed for 65 years, but the piratical Jews extend a paradoxical "right of return" to Jews from around the world who have never set foot in Palestine.

You have created quite a paradox for yourself here. If the objective condition for holding the "right of return" is whether or not one has set foot in the territory -- then neither the Jewish people nor the Palestinian "refugees" have a right of return absent of that condition. If one is being objective, either they are both restricted by that condition, or neither is. You can't impose a condition on the one group and not on the other without revealing your hypocrisy.

There is no such right of return in international law nor the UN Charter It is a myth

Furthermore, Arabs, who attacked Israel and fled or were displaced, have no moral right to return And for most so-called “palestinians” who are merely Arabs from various Arab countries identifying as such, there is nothing to return to except the Arab countries of origin

LOL!!!! typically you have no faint clue as to what you spout...the Arab/Palestinian population of historic Palestine had residency rights tracing back 13--count em fool---centuries, whereas the Euro-trash Jews who usurped their residency rights had zero legal authority...keep lying dummy

 

[rylah]

Coyote

Thank you for reminding me to call out all the hate, and not just one side's.

Here's the compelling argument which I think can be found here. Part of self-determination is the right to self-identification. Many Arab Palestinians identify strongly with both Jordanians and Syrians, and claim that all three are the same people. In fact, many argue that the current problems of those peoples are a direct result of the artificial separation of what really is ONE people.

This opens up the potential for a number of different solutions to the Arab Palestinians plight. We are not just restricted to a tiny piece of land adjoining Israel if we think in this way. There are other options. And it might provide all sorts of benefits to Arabs in all three/four places.

It is all so simple...Just give the Palestinians their land........and Joe The Palestinians are not the same as other Arabs as they are a Semitic People like some Jews are........But not all Jews of course(the European Zionist Type who are converts to Judiaism but are other peoples from central asia originally)The Question I ask Shusha is,why do you Hate the cousins of the Jews,the Palestinians,what have they ever done to real Jews,who they lived WITH,... IN harmony FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS??????obviously that changed after 1948...due to Terrorism,Murder and mayhem by the Jews 1948 onwards.../TOR

The Palestinians are a mixture of peoples that include Arabs and other peoples who have been in that area since ancient times.

I'm not sure why you single out the "European Zionist Type" as if they are a separate species. They aren't. All peoples who where split in migrations or overrun in conquests would most likely would have to intermarry to survive. What defines them as a people though is the continuity of a culture more then genetics. If you are going to attempt to split them that way then you have to recognize the same in the Palestinians who's population includes relatively recent immigrants from other Arab areas.

Zionists,They are a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SPECIES...As most derive from the Askenarzi sic Jews but more importantly,they are only JEWS BY CONVERSION...they have NO link to Palestine at all,because they are a hotch pot of mainly central Asians and others,just converts to Judaism....Only the Shepardic Jews and the Palestinians have direct link to Abraham and both are Semitic People,...Most Zionists and Askanazi Jews are not SEMITIC at all,yet the cry that anyone who challenge them,are Anti-Semetic (it is all crap,they use it as a defence against critique charged against them and their horrible cult)

In fact,Israel is no longer a true Semitic majority any more as none Semetics outnumber Semetic Jews...something often over looked here

By the way Zionists have a Culture of sorts,but dispite all their hollering it is Not the Culture of Real Jews,the Ultras and the Secular Jews...You should Stop trying to make out that Israel is a harmonious Country and that all Jews who live there are in harmony...They are not.That is why many Russian Jews have left Israel for Europe and America....these educated Jews see Israel in a different light to the hordes that invaded Palestine,from 1920 onwards,No Israel is just not for them,they have been to the mountain top and don't like the view

What a boring racist rant.

But it's very important that the pro-Palestinian side get this shit about RACE and BLOOD PURITY out of their chest, in each and every discussion.

Now tell us, what is the meaning of 'Semitic', where the term originated and how old is it?

BTW about a 100 years before any Arab identified as 'Palestinian', Jews in Europe were already mentioned as 'Palestinians among us', in a similar racist rant by Emmanuel Kant.

 

[JoelT1]

Israel is a state for almost three quarters of a century. Everything else is nonsense. Move on, people

 

[thetor]

Coyote

Thank you for reminding me to call out all the hate, and not just one side's.

Here's the compelling argument which I think can be found here. Part of self-determination is the right to self-identification. Many Arab Palestinians identify strongly with both Jordanians and Syrians, and claim that all three are the same people. In fact, many argue that the current problems of those peoples are a direct result of the artificial separation of what really is ONE people.

This opens up the potential for a number of different solutions to the Arab Palestinians plight. We are not just restricted to a tiny piece of land adjoining Israel if we think in this way. There are other options. And it might provide all sorts of benefits to Arabs in all three/four places.

It is all so simple...Just give the Palestinians their land........and Joe The Palestinians are not the same as other Arabs as they are a Semitic People like some Jews are........But not all Jews of course(the European Zionist Type who are converts to Judiaism but are other peoples from central asia originally)The Question I ask Shusha is,why do you Hate the cousins of the Jews,the Palestinians,what have they ever done to real Jews,who they lived WITH,... IN harmony FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS??????obviously that changed after 1948...due to Terrorism,Murder and mayhem by the Jews 1948 onwards.../TOR

The Palestinians are a mixture of peoples that include Arabs and other peoples who have been in that area since ancient times.

I'm not sure why you single out the "European Zionist Type" as if they are a separate species. They aren't. All peoples who where split in migrations or overrun in conquests would most likely would have to intermarry to survive. What defines them as a people though is the continuity of a culture more then genetics. If you are going to attempt to split them that way then you have to recognize the same in the Palestinians who's population includes relatively recent immigrants from other Arab areas.

Zionists,They are a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SPECIES...As most derive from the Askenarzi sic Jews but more importantly,they are only JEWS BY CONVERSION...they have NO link to Palestine at all,because they are a hotch pot of mainly central Asians and others,just converts to Judaism....Only the Shepardic Jews and the Palestinians have direct link to Abraham and both are Semitic People,...Most Zionists and Askanazi Jews are not SEMITIC at all,yet the cry that anyone who challenge them,are Anti-Semetic (it is all crap,they use it as a defence against critique charged against them and their horrible cult)

In fact,Israel is no longer a true Semitic majority any more as none Semetics outnumber Semetic Jews...something often over looked here

By the way Zionists have a Culture of sorts,but dispite all their hollering it is Not the Culture of Real Jews,the Ultras and the Secular Jews...You should Stop trying to make out that Israel is a harmonious Country and that all Jews who live there are in harmony...They are not.That is why many Russian Jews have left Israel for Europe and America....these educated Jews see Israel in a different light to the hordes that invaded Palestine,from 1920 onwards,No Israel is just not for them,they have been to the mountain top and don't like the view

What a boring racist rant.

But it's very important that the pro-Palestinian side get this shit about RACE and BLOOD PURITY out of their chest, in each and every discussion.

Now tell us, what is the meaning of 'Semitic', where the term originated and how old is it?

BTW about a 100 before any Arab as 'Palestinian', Jews in Europe were already mentioned as 'Palestinians among us', in a similar racist rant by Emmanuel Kant.

Stop being a Bore,as you must realize Ry...I am Superior to you....and it is I that ask the questions(just teasing you,actually I like your posts,I reckon you could be quite interesting)

 

[thetor]

Israel is a state for almost three quarters of a century. Everything else is nonsense. Move on, people

And they were nothing for over 2000 years,They moved on alright an Stole Land That Was Not Theirs To Take