Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2

[Hollie]

Tinmore,

There was NO State of Palestine, not Kingdom of Palestine, No Caliphate of Palestine, there was no Nation of Palestine, there was no Country of Palestine.

There was a region sometimes called Palestine where the only Nation
which ever existed on it for over a thousand years, was the Jewish Nation called Israel or Judah/Judea.

The territory was ceded to the Jews to recreate their Nation ON the land where their ancient Nation had been.

The British CHOSE the name Palestine for the Mandate for the Mandate for the same reason the Romans had done it. To insult the Jews.

The British government continued to show how much they cared for a creation of a State for the Jews when they began to expel Jews from Gaza, did not put down the riots, did not arrest Al-Husseini, came up with the White Paper, and began to restrict immigration of Jews to their own ancient homeland.

There was never a State, Nation, Country, Caliphate, Empire, Monarchy, etc named Palestine.

Not even today.

Of course you have no proof for all that horseshit, do you?

Do you have proof of any of those I mentioned above?
Capital, currency, Caliph, Kings, Emperors, etc, etc
Documents and historians mentioning any of the above?

Most critically, Benoliel and Perry fail to account for a major international instrument of the era bearing on the status of Palestine, the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne." It was in this treaty that Turkey gave up its territories in the Arab world following its defeat in World War I. The Treaty of Lausanne, to which the World War I allies were party, more than once refers to Turkey's Arab territories (Iraq, Syria, and Palestine), all of which became Class A mandates as "states" that were "detached" from Turkey. The Treaty of Lausanne thus reflected an assumption that the Class A mandate territories, including Palestine, were "states." Under the League Covenant, the independence of these states was "provisionally recognized," and they were to be made independent in due course. The Class A mandates were states temporarily under the administration of an outside state.

http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1045&context=mjil

Here we go with another occurrence of The Tinmore Vortex™

As previously observed, why indeed does someone of your obvious intellectual disadvantages post comments here? Invariably the sum of your posts are nothing more than awkwardly sarcastic jabs or simple-minded attack positions...you cannot appear to conduct anything which might approach an academic exchange, refute any post that you dispute or essentially satisfy anything but your own idiotic impulse to demonstrate how dumb you are...

Another of your pointless tirades.

I expected your failure to address an utter lack of credibility with your links to Flat Earth groupies.

Would you like to entertain us with more links to “failedmessiah.com”?

 

[RoccoR]

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

No, that is 100% incorrect.

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

See USMB Posting #8301

OK, but there has never been a treaty or agreement to alter Palestine's international borders.

Which is why Israel has borders with Jordan and with Egypt in the place that they are.

None of them have the authority to change Palestine's borders.

(COMMENT)

It was the Allied Powers that set the borders and boundaries to begin with. The designer which can make a thing can alter and change a thing.

✪ Who had the voice that could countermand the decisions made by the "Allied Powers" that dismantled the Ottoman Empire?

✪ What is the authority of your voice that can insist that the "Allied Powers" had no authority?​

The "Allied Powers" of the Great War, who defeated the Ottoman Empire and the Army of the Turkish Republic, where the very same powers that accepted:

ARTICLE 16 ⇒ 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 Allied Powers had all the authority they needed through battlefield victories and treaty negotiations to set the future of the territories.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, but the territory was ceded to the state of Palestine (not the Mandate) where the Palestinians became the citizens. The Palestinians were the sovereigns of the territory.

(COMMENT)

Nothing was promised to, ⇒ or given to, ⇒ or transferred to, anyone other than the Allied Powers.

Palestine was not a party to:

• The Armistice of Mudros, where the Ottoman Empire Surrendered to the Allied Powers.
• The Treaty of Severs, where the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic signed,
• The Treaty of Lausanne, where the Republic of Turkey signed.​

In fact, Palestine was not even mentioned in the Treaty of Lausanne (like it was in the Treaty of Sevres).

I know that, by means of extrapolation, that many Palestinians cling to Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne, as some sort of life-line to a de facto statehood. That is simply not the case. Article 16 is in Section I - Territorial Clauses; whereas Article 30 is no Section II - Nationality Clauses.

"You can be a Bedouin - and not be a citizen of someplace called Bedo..."
​

That has to do with the the relatively new concept of the control in "stateless refugees" (but that is another story for another time). Those people that lived in the territory that the Allied Powers finally determined were in the British Mandate side of the Sykes-Picot Treaty Line, would be granted citizenship ship under the responsibility of the Mandatory (Great Britain). This was Covered in several documents beginning with the Election Order in Council and the Palestine Order in Council, and the Citizenship Order.

The Allied Powers who wrote the Treaty of Lausanne, never intended the Treaty if interfere in the post-War Civil Administration of the territory. It is not a case of the left-hand not knowing what the right-hand was doing; nor a case of rival administrators.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Ventura77]

Of course you have no proof for all that horseshit, do you?

Do you have proof of any of those I mentioned above?
Capital, currency, Caliph, Kings, Emperors, etc, etc
Documents and historians mentioning any of the above?

Most critically, Benoliel and Perry fail to account for a major international instrument of the era bearing on the status of Palestine, the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne." It was in this treaty that Turkey gave up its territories in the Arab world following its defeat in World War I. The Treaty of Lausanne, to which the World War I allies were party, more than once refers to Turkey's Arab territories (Iraq, Syria, and Palestine), all of which became Class A mandates as "states" that were "detached" from Turkey. The Treaty of Lausanne thus reflected an assumption that the Class A mandate territories, including Palestine, were "states." Under the League Covenant, the independence of these states was "provisionally recognized," and they were to be made independent in due course. The Class A mandates were states temporarily under the administration of an outside state.

http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1045&context=mjil

Here we go with another occurrence of The Tinmore Vortex™

As previously observed, why indeed does someone of your obvious intellectual disadvantages post comments here? Invariably the sum of your posts are nothing more than awkwardly sarcastic jabs or simple-minded attack positions...you cannot appear to conduct anything which might approach an academic exchange, refute any post that you dispute or essentially satisfy anything but your own idiotic impulse to demonstrate how dumb you are...

Another of your pointless tirades.

I expected your failure to address an utter lack of credibility with your links to Flat Earth groupies.

Would you like to entertain us with more links to “failedmessiah.com”?

Sincere thanks for basically proving my very point...this level of cooperation is indeed a rarity

 

[Hollie]

Do you have proof of any of those I mentioned above?
Capital, currency, Caliph, Kings, Emperors, etc, etc
Documents and historians mentioning any of the above?

Most critically, Benoliel and Perry fail to account for a major international instrument of the era bearing on the status of Palestine, the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne." It was in this treaty that Turkey gave up its territories in the Arab world following its defeat in World War I. The Treaty of Lausanne, to which the World War I allies were party, more than once refers to Turkey's Arab territories (Iraq, Syria, and Palestine), all of which became Class A mandates as "states" that were "detached" from Turkey. The Treaty of Lausanne thus reflected an assumption that the Class A mandate territories, including Palestine, were "states." Under the League Covenant, the independence of these states was "provisionally recognized," and they were to be made independent in due course. The Class A mandates were states temporarily under the administration of an outside state.

http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1045&context=mjil

Here we go with another occurrence of The Tinmore Vortex™

As previously observed, why indeed does someone of your obvious intellectual disadvantages post comments here? Invariably the sum of your posts are nothing more than awkwardly sarcastic jabs or simple-minded attack positions...you cannot appear to conduct anything which might approach an academic exchange, refute any post that you dispute or essentially satisfy anything but your own idiotic impulse to demonstrate how dumb you are...

Another of your pointless tirades.

I expected your failure to address an utter lack of credibility with your links to Flat Earth groupies.

Would you like to entertain us with more links to “failedmessiah.com”?

Sincere thanks for basically proving my very point...this level of cooperation is indeed a rarity

Thanks for another pointless tirade. Your cooperation was expected.

Do you have more entertaining links to “failedmessiah.com”?

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

No, that is 100% incorrect.

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

See USMB Posting #8301

OK, but there has never been a treaty or agreement to alter Palestine's international borders.

Which is why Israel has borders with Jordan and with Egypt in the place that they are.

None of them have the authority to change Palestine's borders.

(COMMENT)

It was the Allied Powers that set the borders and boundaries to begin with. The designer which can make a thing can alter and change a thing.

✪ Who had the voice that could countermand the decisions made by the "Allied Powers" that dismantled the Ottoman Empire?

✪ What is the authority of your voice that can insist that the "Allied Powers" had no authority?​

The "Allied Powers" of the Great War, who defeated the Ottoman Empire and the Army of the Turkish Republic, where the very same powers that accepted:

ARTICLE 16 ⇒ 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 Allied Powers had all the authority they needed through battlefield victories and treaty negotiations to set the future of the territories.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, but the territory was ceded to the state of Palestine (not the Mandate) where the Palestinians became the citizens. The Palestinians were the sovereigns of the territory.

(COMMENT)

Nothing was promised to, ⇒ or given to, ⇒ or transferred to, anyone other than the Allied Powers.

Palestine was not a party to:

• The Armistice of Mudros, where the Ottoman Empire Surrendered to the Allied Powers.
• The Treaty of Severs, where the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic signed,
• The Treaty of Lausanne, where the Republic of Turkey signed.​

In fact, Palestine was not even mentioned in the Treaty of Lausanne (like it was in the Treaty of Sevres).

I know that, by means of extrapolation, that many Palestinians cling to Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne, as some sort of life-line to a de facto statehood. That is simply not the case. Article 16 is in Section I - Territorial Clauses; whereas Article 30 is no Section II - Nationality Clauses.

"You can be a Bedouin - and not be a citizen of someplace called Bedo..."
​

That has to do with the the relatively new concept of the control in "stateless refugees" (but that is another story for another time). Those people that lived in the territory that the Allied Powers finally determined were in the British Mandate side of the Sykes-Picot Treaty Line, would be granted citizenship ship under the responsibility of the Mandatory (Great Britain). This was Covered in several documents beginning with the Election Order in Council and the Palestine Order in Council, and the Citizenship Order.

The Allied Powers who wrote the Treaty of Lausanne, never intended the Treaty if interfere in the post-War Civil Administration of the territory. It is not a case of the left-hand not knowing what the right-hand was doing; nor a case of rival administrators.

Most Respectfully,
R

It is funny to watch you grasp at straws.

 

[Hollie]

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

No, that is 100% incorrect.

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

See USMB Posting #8301

Which is why Israel has borders with Jordan and with Egypt in the place that they are.

None of them have the authority to change Palestine's borders.

(COMMENT)

It was the Allied Powers that set the borders and boundaries to begin with. The designer which can make a thing can alter and change a thing.

✪ Who had the voice that could countermand the decisions made by the "Allied Powers" that dismantled the Ottoman Empire?

✪ What is the authority of your voice that can insist that the "Allied Powers" had no authority?​

The "Allied Powers" of the Great War, who defeated the Ottoman Empire and the Army of the Turkish Republic, where the very same powers that accepted:

ARTICLE 16 ⇒ 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 Allied Powers had all the authority they needed through battlefield victories and treaty negotiations to set the future of the territories.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, but the territory was ceded to the state of Palestine (not the Mandate) where the Palestinians became the citizens. The Palestinians were the sovereigns of the territory.

(COMMENT)

Nothing was promised to, ⇒ or given to, ⇒ or transferred to, anyone other than the Allied Powers.

Palestine was not a party to:

• The Armistice of Mudros, where the Ottoman Empire Surrendered to the Allied Powers.
• The Treaty of Severs, where the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic signed,
• The Treaty of Lausanne, where the Republic of Turkey signed.​

In fact, Palestine was not even mentioned in the Treaty of Lausanne (like it was in the Treaty of Sevres).

I know that, by means of extrapolation, that many Palestinians cling to Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne, as some sort of life-line to a de facto statehood. That is simply not the case. Article 16 is in Section I - Territorial Clauses; whereas Article 30 is no Section II - Nationality Clauses.

"You can be a Bedouin - and not be a citizen of someplace called Bedo..."
​

That has to do with the the relatively new concept of the control in "stateless refugees" (but that is another story for another time). Those people that lived in the territory that the Allied Powers finally determined were in the British Mandate side of the Sykes-Picot Treaty Line, would be granted citizenship ship under the responsibility of the Mandatory (Great Britain). This was Covered in several documents beginning with the Election Order in Council and the Palestine Order in Council, and the Citizenship Order.

The Allied Powers who wrote the Treaty of Lausanne, never intended the Treaty if interfere in the post-War Civil Administration of the territory. It is not a case of the left-hand not knowing what the right-hand was doing; nor a case of rival administrators.

Most Respectfully,
R

It is funny to watch you grasp at straws.

I found it to be a logical connection of supported data.

Your non-response, on the other hand, was a retreat to irrelevance.

 

[Shusha]

...you wrongly claimed that Jews have rights to Palestinian land...I demanded that you put up proof of this claim and you have yet to satisfy that demand because we both know its horseshit!!!

I believe that indigenous and long-resident people have the right to self-determination and sovereignty. International law supports this concept. This is evident in existence of nations such as the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Of Serbia and Bosnia and Montenegro and and Croatia and Macedonia and Slovenia. It is evident in the struggles of the Catalans and the Kurds and the Cypriots. And in the votes which took place in Quebec and in Scotland. Its a simple concept.

Further it is self-evident that the Jewish people's ancestral and historical and religious homeland is in Israel and Judea and Samaria. It is beyond ridiculous to claim otherwise.


Neither of these concepts require "proof". What proof would you give for the right of the Catalans to independence, self-determination and sovereignty from Spain? What proof would you give for the right of the Arab Palestinian people to independence, self-determination and sovereignty from Jordan or Syria?

 

[Shusha]

Most critically, Benoliel and Perry fail to account for a major international instrument of the era bearing on the status of Palestine, the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne." It was in this treaty that Turkey gave up its territories in the Arab world following its defeat in World War I. The Treaty of Lausanne, to which the World War I allies were party, more than once refers to Turkey's Arab territories (Iraq, Syria, and Palestine), all of which became Class A mandates as "states" that were "detached" from Turkey. The Treaty of Lausanne thus reflected an assumption that the Class A mandate territories, including Palestine, were "states." Under the League Covenant, the independence of these states was "provisionally recognized," and they were to be made independent in due course. The Class A mandates were states temporarily under the administration of an outside state.

http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1045&context=mjil

I don't think you are going to like this line of argument that you are going down. (But I do).

IF the 1923 Treay of Lausanne detached actually existing states from Turkey and those states came into existence at that time -- then Israel has been a State for the Jewish people since 1923. Your argument that there was no intent for a state to be formed, despite Articles 4 and 11 of the Palestine Mandate in particular, is blown to bits by your own insistence that not only was a state intended -- a state was actually created in 1923.

It was a State for the Jewish people, governed by the Jewish people.

 

[Ventura77]

Most critically, Benoliel and Perry fail to account for a major international instrument of the era bearing on the status of Palestine, the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne." It was in this treaty that Turkey gave up its territories in the Arab world following its defeat in World War I. The Treaty of Lausanne, to which the World War I allies were party, more than once refers to Turkey's Arab territories (Iraq, Syria, and Palestine), all of which became Class A mandates as "states" that were "detached" from Turkey. The Treaty of Lausanne thus reflected an assumption that the Class A mandate territories, including Palestine, were "states." Under the League Covenant, the independence of these states was "provisionally recognized," and they were to be made independent in due course. The Class A mandates were states temporarily under the administration of an outside state.

http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1045&context=mjil

I don't think you are going to like this line of argument that you are going down. (But I do).

IF the 1923 Treay of Lausanne detached actually existing states from Turkey and those states came into existence at that time -- then Israel has been a State for the Jewish people since 1923. Your argument that there was no intent for a state to be formed, despite Articles 4 and 11 of the Palestine Mandate in particular, is blown to bits by your own insistence that not only was a state intended -- a state was actually created in 1923.

It was a State for the Jewish people, governed by the Jewish people.

how interesting, because in 1919--a mere 3 years prior to your state estimation---the Arab population of historic Palestine approached nearly one-million, with a Jewish minority of less than 100,000...following your criterion for statehood the Chinese minority in the Philippines are entitled to establish a state of their own...LOL

 

[Shusha]

..following your criterion for statehood the Chinese minority in the Philippines are entitled to establish a state of their own..

And your problem with that is what, exactly? If the Chinese minority in the Phillippines were significantly distinct from the Chinese in China and wished to have independence and self-determination and sovereignty -- why shouldn't they have it?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Most critically, Benoliel and Perry fail to account for a major international instrument of the era bearing on the status of Palestine, the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne." It was in this treaty that Turkey gave up its territories in the Arab world following its defeat in World War I. The Treaty of Lausanne, to which the World War I allies were party, more than once refers to Turkey's Arab territories (Iraq, Syria, and Palestine), all of which became Class A mandates as "states" that were "detached" from Turkey. The Treaty of Lausanne thus reflected an assumption that the Class A mandate territories, including Palestine, were "states." Under the League Covenant, the independence of these states was "provisionally recognized," and they were to be made independent in due course. The Class A mandates were states temporarily under the administration of an outside state.

http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1045&context=mjil

I don't think you are going to like this line of argument that you are going down. (But I do).

IF the 1923 Treay of Lausanne detached actually existing states from Turkey and those states came into existence at that time -- then Israel has been a State for the Jewish people since 1923. Your argument that there was no intent for a state to be formed, despite Articles 4 and 11 of the Palestine Mandate in particular, is blown to bits by your own insistence that not only was a state intended -- a state was actually created in 1923.

It was a State for the Jewish people, governed by the Jewish people.

Can you document that assertion?

 

[Ventura77]

...you wrongly claimed that Jews have rights to Palestinian land...I demanded that you put up proof of this claim and you have yet to satisfy that demand because we both know its horseshit!!!

I believe that indigenous and long-resident people have the right to self-determination and sovereignty. International law supports this concept. This is evident in existence of nations such as the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Of Serbia and Bosnia and Montenegro and and Croatia and Macedonia and Slovenia. It is evident in the struggles of the Catalans and the Kurds and the Cypriots. And in the votes which took place in Quebec and in Scotland. Its a simple concept.

Further it is self-evident that the Jewish people's ancestral and historical and religious homeland is in Israel and Judea and Samaria. It is beyond ridiculous to claim otherwise.


Neither of these concepts require "proof". What proof would you give for the right of the Catalans to independence, self-determination and sovereignty from Spain? What proof would you give for the right of the Arab Palestinian people to independence, self-determination and sovereignty from Jordan or Syria?

"Further it is self-evident that the Jewish people's ancestral and historical and religious homeland is in Israel and Judea and Samaria. It is beyond ridiculous to claim otherwise. "

LMFAO!!!!! Apparently we are supposed to consent to nothing beyond your opinion that any adjustment to this sentence is axiomatically 'ridiculous'...see if you can fit 'self-evident' into a framework for legal reference? As previously explained to the point of futility the Eastern European Jews---direct descendants of Khazar-converts to Judaism-- have zero legal or ethical claim to historic Palestine...if you believe otherwise present your putative proof of this fictive right or concede your inability to do so...

 

[Ventura77]

..following your criterion for statehood the Chinese minority in the Philippines are entitled to establish a state of their own..

And your problem with that is what, exactly? If the Chinese minority in the Phillippines were significantly distinct from the Chinese in China and wished to have independence and self-determination and sovereignty -- why shouldn't they have it?

LOL!!!! for the very same set of legal and ethical reasons that a self-entitled Jewish minority in Palestine shouldn't have it...capish?

 

[rylah]

Tenure invariably defines residency rights...let's crawl out on a limb and theorize that 13 consecutive centuries of residency trumps 70 years of criminal occupation...still waiting for that proof of Jews' rights to Palestine...you must have misplaced it...LOL

Define for us what specific group had 13 consecutive centuries of residency.

The Jewish people have nearly four thousand years of consecutive, continuous residency.

Indeed, and they became Palestinian citizens with the rest of the people living there.

One cannot become a citizen of a country or Nation which does not exist.

Palestine never existed as a Nation/Country.
The Romans called the region where Judea and Samaria existed
SYRIA Palestinia. There were no Syrian Palestinians at any time.
No one, not one inhabitant, not one invader ever called the people living on the land Syrian Palestinians .

Not the Romans, the Byzantine, the Muslims, the Crusaders, the Ottomans, or the British.
Not the Americans, the Germans, the Italians, or anyone else who visited the region.

Israel did exist and had citizens to its Nation.
They were not called Palestinians.

One cannot become a citizen of a country or Nation which does not exist.

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.”​

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel

Q. And how many Arabs became Palestinian citizens? How many opted to receive the passport?

 

[Ventura77]

Define for us what specific group had 13 consecutive centuries of residency.

The Jewish people have nearly four thousand years of consecutive, continuous residency.

Indeed, and they became Palestinian citizens with the rest of the people living there.

One cannot become a citizen of a country or Nation which does not exist.

Palestine never existed as a Nation/Country.
The Romans called the region where Judea and Samaria existed
SYRIA Palestinia. There were no Syrian Palestinians at any time.
No one, not one inhabitant, not one invader ever called the people living on the land Syrian Palestinians .

Not the Romans, the Byzantine, the Muslims, the Crusaders, the Ottomans, or the British.
Not the Americans, the Germans, the Italians, or anyone else who visited the region.

Israel did exist and had citizens to its Nation.
They were not called Palestinians.

One cannot become a citizen of a country or Nation which does not exist.

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.”​

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel

Q. And how many Arabs became Palestinian citizens? How many opted to receive the passport?

your plaintive question is quite irrelevant to the issue of putative Zionist legitimacy in a majority Arab state...

 

[Shusha]

Can you document that assertion?

Again? Jeeze, I'll have to put this on perma-link to save me from doing it three times a day.

Mandate for Palestine:

Preamble: Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and

Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country; and

Article 2: The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.

Article 4: An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration to assist and take part in the development of the country.

The Zionist organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.

Article 6: The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.

Article 11: The Administration of Palestine shall take all necessary measures to safeguard the interests of the community in connection with the development of the country, and, subject to any international obligations accepted by the Mandatory, shall have full power to provide for public ownership or control of any of the natural resources of the country or of the public works, services and utilities established or to be established therein. It shall introduce a land system appropriate to the needs of the country, having regard, among other things, to the desirability of promoting the close settlement and intensive cultivation of the land.

The Administration may arrange with the Jewish agency mentioned in Article 4 to construct or operate, upon fair and equitable terms, any public works, services and utilities, and to develop any of the natural resources of the country, in so far as these matters are not directly undertaken by the Administration. Any such arrangements shall provide that no profits distributed by such agency, directly or indirectly, shall exceed a reasonable rate of interest on the capital, and any further profits shall be utilised by it for the benefit of the country in a manner approved by the Administration.




If Palestine was already a State by the time this was written -- it was clearly a state for the Jewish people and to be developed by and eventually handed over to a Jewish government.

 

[P F Tinmore]

..following your criterion for statehood the Chinese minority in the Philippines are entitled to establish a state of their own..

And your problem with that is what, exactly? If the Chinese minority in the Phillippines were significantly distinct from the Chinese in China and wished to have independence and self-determination and sovereignty -- why shouldn't they have it?

Nobody has the right to violate the rights of others. If those Chinese are citizens the most they can legitimately get is shared sovereignty with the other citizens.

The same for the Jews in Palestine.

 

[rylah]

The Jewish people have nearly four thousand years of consecutive, continuous residency.

Indeed, and they became Palestinian citizens with the rest of the people living there.

One cannot become a citizen of a country or Nation which does not exist.

Palestine never existed as a Nation/Country.
The Romans called the region where Judea and Samaria existed
SYRIA Palestinia. There were no Syrian Palestinians at any time.
No one, not one inhabitant, not one invader ever called the people living on the land Syrian Palestinians .

Not the Romans, the Byzantine, the Muslims, the Crusaders, the Ottomans, or the British.
Not the Americans, the Germans, the Italians, or anyone else who visited the region.

Israel did exist and had citizens to its Nation.
They were not called Palestinians.

One cannot become a citizen of a country or Nation which does not exist.

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.”​

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel

Q. And how many Arabs became Palestinian citizens? How many opted to receive the passport?

your plaintive question is quite irrelevant to the issue of putative Zionist legitimacy in a majority Arab state...

Usually ethnically cleansed people remain a minority in their homeland, look at the many Arab Muslim countries
The indigenous people are a tiny minority in Americas - yet they have ALL the legitimacy to self-determination.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Can you document that assertion?

Again? Jeeze, I'll have to put this on perma-link to save me from doing it three times a day.

Mandate for Palestine:

Preamble: Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and

Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country; and

Article 2: The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.

Article 4: An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration to assist and take part in the development of the country.

The Zionist organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.

Article 6: The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.

Article 11: The Administration of Palestine shall take all necessary measures to safeguard the interests of the community in connection with the development of the country, and, subject to any international obligations accepted by the Mandatory, shall have full power to provide for public ownership or control of any of the natural resources of the country or of the public works, services and utilities established or to be established therein. It shall introduce a land system appropriate to the needs of the country, having regard, among other things, to the desirability of promoting the close settlement and intensive cultivation of the land.

The Administration may arrange with the Jewish agency mentioned in Article 4 to construct or operate, upon fair and equitable terms, any public works, services and utilities, and to develop any of the natural resources of the country, in so far as these matters are not directly undertaken by the Administration. Any such arrangements shall provide that no profits distributed by such agency, directly or indirectly, shall exceed a reasonable rate of interest on the capital, and any further profits shall be utilised by it for the benefit of the country in a manner approved by the Administration.




If Palestine was already a State by the time this was written -- it was clearly a state for the Jewish people and to be developed by and eventually handed over to a Jewish government.

So then, why did the British hand Palestine over to the UNSCOP and not Israel?

 

[Shusha]

LMFAO!!!!! Apparently we are supposed to consent to nothing beyond your opinion that any adjustment to this sentence is axiomatically 'ridiculous'...see if you can fit 'self-evident' into a framework for legal reference? As previously explained to the point of futility the Eastern European Jews---direct descendants of Khazar-converts to Judaism-- have zero legal or ethical claim to historic Palestine...if you believe otherwise present your putative proof of this fictive right or concede your inability to do so...

You move straight into irrelevancies as an attempt to deflect from the issue.

Where are the Jewish people from? Where did they originate? Where is the historical home for the Jewish people? Are you seriously going to deny that the Jewish people, as a whole, originated and held thousands of years of history in THAT place? You can't possibly deny it. You said just today that there were ancient Jewish kingdoms in that territory.