Who Are The Palestinians?

[MJB12741]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yeah, this is argument over international borders is just subterfuge in an attempt to justify Jihadist action and Hostile Palestinian aggression.

How can that happen? There is nothing between what is called Israel and Gaza but an armistice line (That is specifically not to be a political or territorial border) that Egyptian and Israeli troops are not to cross.

This conclusion is based on false premise.

(COMMENT)

It is not a "false conclusion."

There are several concepts in play here.

First:

Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as prejudicing the positions of the parties concerned with regard to the status and effects of such lines under their special regimes or as affecting their temporary character. (Para 1, Clause 5, A/RES/25/2625, Codification of the Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States)​

Second:

Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947, and Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory: The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem. (ANNEX III, Declaration of Independence, A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988)​

1. Acknowledges the proclamation of the State of Palestine by the Palestine National Council on 15 November 1988;
2. Affirms the need to enable the Palestinian people to exercise their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967;
3. Decides that, effective as of 15 December 1988, the designation "Palestine" should be used in place of the designation "Palestine Liberation Organization" in the United Nations system, without prejudice to the observer status and functions of the Palestine Liberation Organization within the United Nations system, in conformity with relevant United Nations resolutions and practice; (A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988 "Question of Palestine" --- UN Acknowledgment and Recognition)​

The demarcation line is just as sound and valid as any other border or boundary. It is internationally protected by the Declaration of Principles. The fact that the State of Palestine has not initiated a Treaty, does not make the line any less valid; other than its temporal nature. The line is further promoted by the PLO/PNC in its Declaration of Independence and formally acknowledge by the General Assembly and Security Council. It is a reality; while some Hostile Arab Palestinians are in denial and challenge the legitimacy, it is none the less a reality that is physically manifested by a physical presence on the perimeter.

Does that mean that Gaza is in Israel?

Actually, there was a point in time (the period 26 March 1979 to 15 November 1988), where this could be argued; but has since been overtaken by events. During this brief period (nearly a decade), "[t]he 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." There was no Palestinian hand in the agreement, lacking a competent government with "full powers" acting as a "state" with the ability to express the "consent of the State of Palestine to be bound by a treaty, or for accomplishing any other act with respect to a treaty" (1969 VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES). But again, this is a mute point as Israel did not contest the Palestinian Declaration of Independence of 1988 by the the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people (Seventh Arab League Summit Conference Resolution on Palestine Rabat, Morocco 28 october 1974).

Needless to say, the Gaza Strip is intrinsically tied to the West Bank, which together form the State of Palestine:

​

Recalling its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947,

Affirms its determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfils the vision of two States: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders;
SOURCE: A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012

There may have been a point in time, many decades ago, when the Palestinians could have made an issue of the demarkation lines, armistice lines and the recognition of international borders; but that time has long since past. We are concerned with contemprary views --- closer in terms of today, as opposed to the views held a half century ago.

The existence of a “Palestinian people” and the "State of Palestine" --- and that of the "People of Israel" and the "State of Israel" --- are no longer at issue. Such existence has been recognized by Israel and Palestine in the exchange of letters of 9 September 1993 between the President of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO Yassar Arafat) and Israeli Prime Minister (Yitzhak Rabin). In that exchange the Chairman Arafat recognized “the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security” and PM Rabin recognize the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people”. The Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip of 28 September 1995 (Oslo Accord II) refers a to the Palestinian people and its “legitimate rights” (Preamble, paras. 4, 7, 8; Article II, para. 2; Article III, paras. 1 and 3; Article XXII, para. 2). This issue of where the lines are drawn is only an issue and of significant importance to those that are more interested in a justification for the continuation of the conflict, then the peace, security and prosperity of the citizenry on both sides. Under customary law, every State (Palestine included) has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force (no rockets, mortars, attack of any kind are justified) to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States (Palestine included). Any other interpretation of the Declaration of Principles is simply an artificial excuse to promote Jihad. The discussion of the permanent boundaries, especially as presented here, is subterfuge.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco, you are drawing conclusions without considering the timeline of events.

In 1917 Britain occupied that area. It was the occupying power over enemy territory. During that time treaties defined the future international borders of Palestine and the other new countries in the region.

When the Treaty of Lausanne was ratified in 1924, Palestine ceased to be enemy territory ending Britain's occupation. Palestine came into existence as a "successor state" like the other new countries in that region.

Palestine's international borders had already been defined.The Palestinian nationality was recognized and they were citizens of Palestine.

As the indigenous population of Palestine, they had inherent, inalienable rights:

To self determination without external interference.
To independence and sovereignty.
To territorial integrity.​

Anything that happened after that time that was against the wishes or best interest of the Palestinians was a violation of their inalienable rights.

Whoa now. Are you actually saying that Muslim Palestinians are the "indigenous population of Palestine"???

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yeah, this is argument over international borders is just subterfuge in an attempt to justify Jihadist action and Hostile Palestinian aggression.

How can that happen? There is nothing between what is called Israel and Gaza but an armistice line (That is specifically not to be a political or territorial border) that Egyptian and Israeli troops are not to cross.

This conclusion is based on false premise.

(COMMENT)

It is not a "false conclusion."

There are several concepts in play here.

First:

Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as prejudicing the positions of the parties concerned with regard to the status and effects of such lines under their special regimes or as affecting their temporary character. (Para 1, Clause 5, A/RES/25/2625, Codification of the Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States)​

Second:

Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947, and Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory: The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem. (ANNEX III, Declaration of Independence, A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988)​

1. Acknowledges the proclamation of the State of Palestine by the Palestine National Council on 15 November 1988;
2. Affirms the need to enable the Palestinian people to exercise their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967;
3. Decides that, effective as of 15 December 1988, the designation "Palestine" should be used in place of the designation "Palestine Liberation Organization" in the United Nations system, without prejudice to the observer status and functions of the Palestine Liberation Organization within the United Nations system, in conformity with relevant United Nations resolutions and practice; (A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988 "Question of Palestine" --- UN Acknowledgment and Recognition)​

The demarcation line is just as sound and valid as any other border or boundary. It is internationally protected by the Declaration of Principles. The fact that the State of Palestine has not initiated a Treaty, does not make the line any less valid; other than its temporal nature. The line is further promoted by the PLO/PNC in its Declaration of Independence and formally acknowledge by the General Assembly and Security Council. It is a reality; while some Hostile Arab Palestinians are in denial and challenge the legitimacy, it is none the less a reality that is physically manifested by a physical presence on the perimeter.

Does that mean that Gaza is in Israel?

Actually, there was a point in time (the period 26 March 1979 to 15 November 1988), where this could be argued; but has since been overtaken by events. During this brief period (nearly a decade), "[t]he 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." There was no Palestinian hand in the agreement, lacking a competent government with "full powers" acting as a "state" with the ability to express the "consent of the State of Palestine to be bound by a treaty, or for accomplishing any other act with respect to a treaty" (1969 VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES). But again, this is a mute point as Israel did not contest the Palestinian Declaration of Independence of 1988 by the the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people (Seventh Arab League Summit Conference Resolution on Palestine Rabat, Morocco 28 october 1974).

Needless to say, the Gaza Strip is intrinsically tied to the West Bank, which together form the State of Palestine:

​

Recalling its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947,

Affirms its determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfils the vision of two States: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders;
SOURCE: A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012

There may have been a point in time, many decades ago, when the Palestinians could have made an issue of the demarkation lines, armistice lines and the recognition of international borders; but that time has long since past. We are concerned with contemprary views --- closer in terms of today, as opposed to the views held a half century ago.

The existence of a “Palestinian people” and the "State of Palestine" --- and that of the "People of Israel" and the "State of Israel" --- are no longer at issue. Such existence has been recognized by Israel and Palestine in the exchange of letters of 9 September 1993 between the President of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO Yassar Arafat) and Israeli Prime Minister (Yitzhak Rabin). In that exchange the Chairman Arafat recognized “the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security” and PM Rabin recognize the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people”. The Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip of 28 September 1995 (Oslo Accord II) refers a to the Palestinian people and its “legitimate rights” (Preamble, paras. 4, 7, 8; Article II, para. 2; Article III, paras. 1 and 3; Article XXII, para. 2). This issue of where the lines are drawn is only an issue and of significant importance to those that are more interested in a justification for the continuation of the conflict, then the peace, security and prosperity of the citizenry on both sides. Under customary law, every State (Palestine included) has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force (no rockets, mortars, attack of any kind are justified) to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States (Palestine included). Any other interpretation of the Declaration of Principles is simply an artificial excuse to promote Jihad. The discussion of the permanent boundaries, especially as presented here, is subterfuge.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco, you are drawing conclusions without considering the timeline of events.

In 1917 Britain occupied that area. It was the occupying power over enemy territory. During that time treaties defined the future international borders of Palestine and the other new countries in the region.

When the Treaty of Lausanne was ratified in 1924, Palestine ceased to be enemy territory ending Britain's occupation. Palestine came into existence as a "successor state" like the other new countries in that region.

Palestine's international borders had already been defined.The Palestinian nationality was recognized and they were citizens of Palestine.

As the indigenous population of Palestine, they had inherent, inalienable rights:

To self determination without external interference.
To independence and sovereignty.
To territorial integrity.​

Anything that happened after that time that was against the wishes or best interest of the Palestinians was a violation of their inalienable rights.

Whoa now. Are you actually saying that Muslim Palestinians are the "indigenous population of Palestine"???

Where did I mention Muslims?

 

[P F Tinmore]

et al,

I think that Lamis Deek of Al-Awda-NY is one of those make believe Palestinians that just want to continue the advocation of struggle, and such the dismantlement (destruction) of Israel.

This is not an advocate for peace.

Most Respectfully,
R

Israel's version of peace is all of Palestine without the Palestinians. This has been their goal for a hundred years.

Any Palestinian who disagrees with Israel's version is not an advocate for peace.

Just to show you how stupid this woman is, she says that the partition plan never went to the security council for approval and therefore Israel is illegal. Well then so is Palestine, because they used resolution 181 in 1988 as a basis to declare independence, just like Israel did.

Whoops !

She is not stupid. The Security Council never implemented Resolution 181. I have been saying that for years. It doesn't matter how much verbosity Rocco throws at it, it is true. It did not happen.

As far as the 1988 declaration being illegal, good point. It does have some related issues. However, there is still Palestine's 1948 declaration that does not mention Resolution 181.

 

[MJB12741]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yeah, this is argument over international borders is just subterfuge in an attempt to justify Jihadist action and Hostile Palestinian aggression.

How can that happen? There is nothing between what is called Israel and Gaza but an armistice line (That is specifically not to be a political or territorial border) that Egyptian and Israeli troops are not to cross.

This conclusion is based on false premise.

(COMMENT)

It is not a "false conclusion."

There are several concepts in play here.

First:

Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as prejudicing the positions of the parties concerned with regard to the status and effects of such lines under their special regimes or as affecting their temporary character. (Para 1, Clause 5, A/RES/25/2625, Codification of the Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States)​

Second:

Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947, and Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory: The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem. (ANNEX III, Declaration of Independence, A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988)​

1. Acknowledges the proclamation of the State of Palestine by the Palestine National Council on 15 November 1988;
2. Affirms the need to enable the Palestinian people to exercise their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967;
3. Decides that, effective as of 15 December 1988, the designation "Palestine" should be used in place of the designation "Palestine Liberation Organization" in the United Nations system, without prejudice to the observer status and functions of the Palestine Liberation Organization within the United Nations system, in conformity with relevant United Nations resolutions and practice; (A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988 "Question of Palestine" --- UN Acknowledgment and Recognition)​

The demarcation line is just as sound and valid as any other border or boundary. It is internationally protected by the Declaration of Principles. The fact that the State of Palestine has not initiated a Treaty, does not make the line any less valid; other than its temporal nature. The line is further promoted by the PLO/PNC in its Declaration of Independence and formally acknowledge by the General Assembly and Security Council. It is a reality; while some Hostile Arab Palestinians are in denial and challenge the legitimacy, it is none the less a reality that is physically manifested by a physical presence on the perimeter.

Does that mean that Gaza is in Israel?

Actually, there was a point in time (the period 26 March 1979 to 15 November 1988), where this could be argued; but has since been overtaken by events. During this brief period (nearly a decade), "[t]he 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." There was no Palestinian hand in the agreement, lacking a competent government with "full powers" acting as a "state" with the ability to express the "consent of the State of Palestine to be bound by a treaty, or for accomplishing any other act with respect to a treaty" (1969 VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES). But again, this is a mute point as Israel did not contest the Palestinian Declaration of Independence of 1988 by the the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people (Seventh Arab League Summit Conference Resolution on Palestine Rabat, Morocco 28 october 1974).

Needless to say, the Gaza Strip is intrinsically tied to the West Bank, which together form the State of Palestine:

​

Recalling its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947,

Affirms its determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfils the vision of two States: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders;
SOURCE: A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012

There may have been a point in time, many decades ago, when the Palestinians could have made an issue of the demarkation lines, armistice lines and the recognition of international borders; but that time has long since past. We are concerned with contemprary views --- closer in terms of today, as opposed to the views held a half century ago.

The existence of a “Palestinian people” and the "State of Palestine" --- and that of the "People of Israel" and the "State of Israel" --- are no longer at issue. Such existence has been recognized by Israel and Palestine in the exchange of letters of 9 September 1993 between the President of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO Yassar Arafat) and Israeli Prime Minister (Yitzhak Rabin). In that exchange the Chairman Arafat recognized “the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security” and PM Rabin recognize the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people”. The Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip of 28 September 1995 (Oslo Accord II) refers a to the Palestinian people and its “legitimate rights” (Preamble, paras. 4, 7, 8; Article II, para. 2; Article III, paras. 1 and 3; Article XXII, para. 2). This issue of where the lines are drawn is only an issue and of significant importance to those that are more interested in a justification for the continuation of the conflict, then the peace, security and prosperity of the citizenry on both sides. Under customary law, every State (Palestine included) has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force (no rockets, mortars, attack of any kind are justified) to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States (Palestine included). Any other interpretation of the Declaration of Principles is simply an artificial excuse to promote Jihad. The discussion of the permanent boundaries, especially as presented here, is subterfuge.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco, you are drawing conclusions without considering the timeline of events.

In 1917 Britain occupied that area. It was the occupying power over enemy territory. During that time treaties defined the future international borders of Palestine and the other new countries in the region.

When the Treaty of Lausanne was ratified in 1924, Palestine ceased to be enemy territory ending Britain's occupation. Palestine came into existence as a "successor state" like the other new countries in that region.

Palestine's international borders had already been defined.The Palestinian nationality was recognized and they were citizens of Palestine.

As the indigenous population of Palestine, they had inherent, inalienable rights:

To self determination without external interference.
To independence and sovereignty.
To territorial integrity.​

Anything that happened after that time that was against the wishes or best interest of the Palestinians was a violation of their inalienable rights.

Whoa now. Are you actually saying that Muslim Palestinians are the "indigenous population of Palestine"???

Where did I mention Muslims?

Oh now I get it. Israel is committing ethnic genocide upon the Palestinian Jews to steal their land. Honestly Tinmore, you are a blast.

 

[toastman]

et al,

I think that Lamis Deek of Al-Awda-NY is one of those make believe Palestinians that just want to continue the advocation of struggle, and such the dismantlement (destruction) of Israel.

This is not an advocate for peace.

Most Respectfully,
R

Israel's version of peace is all of Palestine without the Palestinians. This has been their goal for a hundred years.

Any Palestinian who disagrees with Israel's version is not an advocate for peace.

Just to show you how stupid this woman is, she says that the partition plan never went to the security council for approval and therefore Israel is illegal. Well then so is Palestine, because they used resolution 181 in 1988 as a basis to declare independence, just like Israel did.

Whoops !

She is not stupid. The Security Council never implemented Resolution 181. I have been saying that for years. It doesn't matter how much verbosity Rocco throws at it, it is true. It did not happen.

As far as the 1988 declaration being illegal, good point. It does have some related issues. However, there is still Palestine's 1948 declaration that does not mention Resolution 181.

You are completely deflecting again. Did you read the link I posted? The Palestinians used 181 to declare independence in 1988. There was no valid declaration of independence in 1948. You can't declare independence twice and have both of them be valid. I've done searches online for Palestinian declaration of independence and nothing about 1948 come up.

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yeah, this is argument over international borders is just subterfuge in an attempt to justify Jihadist action and Hostile Palestinian aggression.

How can that happen? There is nothing between what is called Israel and Gaza but an armistice line (That is specifically not to be a political or territorial border) that Egyptian and Israeli troops are not to cross.

This conclusion is based on false premise.

(COMMENT)

It is not a "false conclusion."

There are several concepts in play here.

First:

Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as prejudicing the positions of the parties concerned with regard to the status and effects of such lines under their special regimes or as affecting their temporary character. (Para 1, Clause 5, A/RES/25/2625, Codification of the Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States)​

Second:

Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947, and Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory: The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem. (ANNEX III, Declaration of Independence, A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988)​

1. Acknowledges the proclamation of the State of Palestine by the Palestine National Council on 15 November 1988;
2. Affirms the need to enable the Palestinian people to exercise their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967;
3. Decides that, effective as of 15 December 1988, the designation "Palestine" should be used in place of the designation "Palestine Liberation Organization" in the United Nations system, without prejudice to the observer status and functions of the Palestine Liberation Organization within the United Nations system, in conformity with relevant United Nations resolutions and practice; (A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988 "Question of Palestine" --- UN Acknowledgment and Recognition)​

The demarcation line is just as sound and valid as any other border or boundary. It is internationally protected by the Declaration of Principles. The fact that the State of Palestine has not initiated a Treaty, does not make the line any less valid; other than its temporal nature. The line is further promoted by the PLO/PNC in its Declaration of Independence and formally acknowledge by the General Assembly and Security Council. It is a reality; while some Hostile Arab Palestinians are in denial and challenge the legitimacy, it is none the less a reality that is physically manifested by a physical presence on the perimeter.

Does that mean that Gaza is in Israel?

Actually, there was a point in time (the period 26 March 1979 to 15 November 1988), where this could be argued; but has since been overtaken by events. During this brief period (nearly a decade), "[t]he 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." There was no Palestinian hand in the agreement, lacking a competent government with "full powers" acting as a "state" with the ability to express the "consent of the State of Palestine to be bound by a treaty, or for accomplishing any other act with respect to a treaty" (1969 VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES). But again, this is a mute point as Israel did not contest the Palestinian Declaration of Independence of 1988 by the the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people (Seventh Arab League Summit Conference Resolution on Palestine Rabat, Morocco 28 october 1974).

Needless to say, the Gaza Strip is intrinsically tied to the West Bank, which together form the State of Palestine:

​

Recalling its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947,

Affirms its determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfils the vision of two States: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders;
SOURCE: A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012

There may have been a point in time, many decades ago, when the Palestinians could have made an issue of the demarkation lines, armistice lines and the recognition of international borders; but that time has long since past. We are concerned with contemprary views --- closer in terms of today, as opposed to the views held a half century ago.

The existence of a “Palestinian people” and the "State of Palestine" --- and that of the "People of Israel" and the "State of Israel" --- are no longer at issue. Such existence has been recognized by Israel and Palestine in the exchange of letters of 9 September 1993 between the President of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO Yassar Arafat) and Israeli Prime Minister (Yitzhak Rabin). In that exchange the Chairman Arafat recognized “the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security” and PM Rabin recognize the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people”. The Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip of 28 September 1995 (Oslo Accord II) refers a to the Palestinian people and its “legitimate rights” (Preamble, paras. 4, 7, 8; Article II, para. 2; Article III, paras. 1 and 3; Article XXII, para. 2). This issue of where the lines are drawn is only an issue and of significant importance to those that are more interested in a justification for the continuation of the conflict, then the peace, security and prosperity of the citizenry on both sides. Under customary law, every State (Palestine included) has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force (no rockets, mortars, attack of any kind are justified) to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States (Palestine included). Any other interpretation of the Declaration of Principles is simply an artificial excuse to promote Jihad. The discussion of the permanent boundaries, especially as presented here, is subterfuge.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco, you are drawing conclusions without considering the timeline of events.

In 1917 Britain occupied that area. It was the occupying power over enemy territory. During that time treaties defined the future international borders of Palestine and the other new countries in the region.

When the Treaty of Lausanne was ratified in 1924, Palestine ceased to be enemy territory ending Britain's occupation. Palestine came into existence as a "successor state" like the other new countries in that region.

Palestine's international borders had already been defined.The Palestinian nationality was recognized and they were citizens of Palestine.

As the indigenous population of Palestine, they had inherent, inalienable rights:

To self determination without external interference.
To independence and sovereignty.
To territorial integrity.​

Anything that happened after that time that was against the wishes or best interest of the Palestinians was a violation of their inalienable rights.

This is completely false. Nothing in the Treaty of Lausanne mentions Palestine or it becoming a successor state. Palestine became a state in 1988. You can't jut make up history as you please

 

[Phoenall]

It is not a "false conclusion."

There are several concepts in play here.

First:

Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect.​

The armistice lines never divided Palestine from anybody else. In the case of the West Bank and Gaza, the lines ran through Palestine. How can the Palestinians violate a line that is Palestine on both sides?

The armistice lines have little to do with Palestine. They were agreements between two sovereign states.

1949 Armistice Agreements - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Look at the map on the right. It clearly shows Israeli territory and Arab territory following the signing of the agreements.

Armistice lines did not designate any territory.

Then why are the Palestinians demanding them as a pre condition of maybe negotiating peace.

 

[Phoenall]

It is not a "false conclusion."

There are several concepts in play here.

First:

Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect.​

The armistice lines never divided Palestine from anybody else. In the case of the West Bank and Gaza, the lines ran through Palestine. How can the Palestinians violate a line that is Palestine on both sides?

The armistice lines have little to do with Palestine. They were agreements between two sovereign states.

1949 Armistice Agreements - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Look at the map on the right. It clearly shows Israeli territory and Arab territory following the signing of the agreements.

Armistice lines did not designate any territory.

I feel the solution would be a self governing, self determination Palestinian State where the Palestinians could no longer suck off of Israel to provide for them. The big question is where to put it as no surrounding Arab country will grant the Palestinians a right of return back to their indigenous homelands. Do you think Mecca might be a nice place for a Palestinian State?

The Palestinians come from Palestine, the Jews come from Europe, North Africa and other areas of the Middle East. The Jews should just go back where their parents and grand parents came from. That would solve the problem.

Up until 1960 the only Palestinians were the Jews, so the Syrians as they called themselves have no claim to any land outside of Syria. The arab muslims should go back just the same to were their parents and grand parents came from and wait to be invited bythe lands legal owners to migrate and settle.

ALLWAYS REMEMBER THAT THE JEWS WERE INVITED BY FIRST THE OTTOMANS AND SECONDLY THE LoN . THE ARABS HD ALREADY BEEN GIVEN THEIR PORTION OF PALESTINE UNDER THE MANDATE

 

[Phoenall]

It is not a "false conclusion."

There are several concepts in play here.

First:

Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect.​

The armistice lines never divided Palestine from anybody else. In the case of the West Bank and Gaza, the lines ran through Palestine. How can the Palestinians violate a line that is Palestine on both sides?

The armistice lines have little to do with Palestine. They were agreements between two sovereign states.

1949 Armistice Agreements - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Look at the map on the right. It clearly shows Israeli territory and Arab territory following the signing of the agreements.

Armistice lines did not designate any territory.

I feel the solution would be a self governing, self determination Palestinian State where the Palestinians could no longer suck off of Israel to provide for them. The big question is where to put it as no surrounding Arab country will grant the Palestinians a right of return back to their indigenous homelands. Do you think Mecca might be a nice place for a Palestinian State?

The Palestinians are home, and some of the Jews homes are on their land.

Then why aren't they in Syria fighting for their country ?

Read the Oslo accords 2 and see were the land was given to Israel by Arafat making your pot a LIE

 

[Phoenall]

The Palestinians come from Palestine, the Jews come from Europe, North Africa and other areas of the Middle East. The Jews should just go back where their parents and grand parents came from. That would solve the problem.

The indigenous Palestinians were Jews. Not a single Muslim among them. So who are the invaders? Duh!

There were obviously the Canaanites you originally stole the land from, intermarried with and they stayed.

The Palestinians come from Palestine, the Jews come from Europe, North Africa and other areas of the Middle East. The Jews should just go back where their parents and grand parents came from. That would solve the problem.

The indigenous Palestinians were Jews. Not a single Muslim among them. So who are the invaders? Duh!

There were obviously the Canaanites you originally stole the land from, intermarried with and they stayed.

Oh that's right. I forgot about all those Muslim Canaanites.

Seriously, Were there Jews among the Canaanite tribes. Were there Muslims among them? Boy that's a tough one, huh Penelope?

Its a tough one for you. It even says in your history books they intermarried with everyone. Like I once said you might be a Canaanite Princess.

So do remind me when did arab muslims come into existence again, and what happened to all the arab non muslims at the same time.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I have no problem with the timeline.

In 1917 Britain occupied that area. It was the occupying power over enemy territory. During that time treaties defined the future international borders of Palestine and the other new countries in the region.

(COMMENT)

For the most part, this is correct. However, the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 16 MAY 1916 actually set the stage between the French Mandates and the British Mandates.

When the Treaty of Lausanne was ratified in 1924, Palestine ceased to be enemy territory ending Britain's occupation. Palestine came into existence as a "successor state" like the other new countries in that region.

(COMMENT)

The 1924 Treaty of Lausanne had nothing to do whatsoever with "Palestine" and the boundaries thereto. The Treaty of Lausanne does not mention Palestine at all. By the Treaty of Lausanne, what you call Palestine was included in the District of Syria. What set the definition of Palestine was the 1922 Palestine Order in Council:

This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."

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

Palestine's international borders had already been defined.The Palestinian nationality was recognized and they were citizens of Palestine.

(COMMENT)

I think you have this wrong.

BLUF: The "successor government" to the British Mandate portion of the former Ottoman District of Damascus, in the State of Syria (in which the Mandate of Palestine fell - Syria being divided by the Syke-Picot Agreement), was the High Commissioner, administering the Government of Palestine, acting by and with the advice of the Executive Council.

The High Commissioner shall do and execute in due manner all things that shall belong to the said office, according to the tenour of any Orders in Council relating to Palestine and of such Commission as may be issued to him under His Majesty's Sign Manual and Signet, and according to such instructions as may from time to time be given to him, for the purpose of executing the provisions of the Mandate, under His Majesty's Sign Manual and Signet, or by Order of His Majesty in Council or by His Majesty through one of His Principal Secretaries of State, and to such laws and ordinances as are now or shall hereafter be in force in Palestine.

Succession to Government.

7. Whenever the office of High Commissioner is vacant or if the High Commissioner become incapable or be absent from Palestine, or be from any cause prevented from acting in the duties of his office, the person appointed to be Chief Secretary to the Government of Palestine, or if there be no such officer therein, or such officer be unable to act, then such person or persons as His Majesty may appoint under His Sign Manual and Signet and in default of such appointment the Senior Member of the Executive Council shall during His Majesty's pleasure administer the Government of Palestine, first taking the oaths hereinbefore directed to be taken by the High Commissioner and in the manner herein prescribed, which being done, the Chief Secretary or any other such Administrator as aforesaid is hereby authorised, empowered and commanded to do and execute during His Majesty's pleasure, all things that belong to the office of the High Commissioner according to the tenour of this Order, and according to His Majesty's Instructions as aforesaid, and the laws of Palestine.​

​

The Palestinian nationality and citizenship of the immigrants to, and the inhabitance of, Palestine (as defined by the Palestine Order in Council) where the province of the High Commissioner; not the hands or power of the immigrants or that of the inhabitants.

WHEREAS "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922," provides for the constitution of a Legislative Council in Palestine, and for the election of part of the members of the Council, and it is necessary to prescribe the system of election of such members;

And whereas by treaty, capitulation, grant, usage, sufferance and other lawful means, His Majesty has power and jurisdiction within Palestine:

NOW THEREFORE His Majesty, by virtue and in exercise of the powers in this behalf by the Foreign Jurisdiction Act, 1890, or otherwise in His Majesty vested, is pleased by and with the advice of his Privy Council to order, and it is hereby ordered as follows:--

Title.	1. This Order may be cited as the Palestine Legislative Council Election Order, 1922.
Definition.	2. In this Order, unless the contrary intention appears,
	"Secretary of State" means one of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State.
	"Register of voters" or "register" means the register prepared in accordance with this Order of the persons entitled to vote for the election of a member of the Legislative Council.
	"Member" means a member of the Legislative Council.
	"District" means one of the administrative divisions into which Palestine may be divided by the High Commissioner.
	For the purposes of this Order and pending the introduction of an Order in Council regulating Palestinian citizenship, the following persons shall be deemed to be Palestinian citizens:--
	(a)Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the date of commencement of this Order.​
[TD]	(b)All persons of other than Turkish nationality habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the said date, who shall within two calendar months of the said date make application for Palestinian citizenship in such form and before such officer as may be prescribed by the High Commissioner.​

[TBODY]

​

[/TD]

​

[/TBODY]

"The Palestinian Citizenship Order in Council, 1925, facilitates the acquisition of Palestinian nationality by persons settling in the country, including those who opted for Palestinian citizenship under the Palestine Legislative Council Election Order in Council, 1922. The Palestinian Citizenship Order in Council which was made in August, 1925, provides for the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by persons habitually resident in the country who were Ottoman subjects, and persons who were foreign subjects and take up permanent residence."

As the indigenous population of Palestine, they had inherent, inalienable rights:

To self determination without external interference.
To independence and sovereignty.
To territorial integrity.
​

​

(COMMENT)

These three considerations, supra, are not unique to the Arab Palestinian. They are just as applicable to the Jewish People. The "rights" follow the people and not the territory or the sovereignty. And these "rights" were not universally recognized in the first decade of the 20th century as they are now, a century later.

Anything that happened after that time that was against the wishes or best interest of the Palestinians was a violation of their inalienable rights.

(COMMENT)

Nonsense. The Palestinian people and the territory considered Palestine, were not even invented until the Allied Occupation and Mandate. Just when did these artificial people discover these "inherent, inalienable rights?" When did these people ever exercise these rights.

What are the Palestinian Leaders doing today that actually result in something tangible and in the best interest of the Palestinians. The Palestinian can stand and look 360 degrees - an not see evidence of a thriving and productive government. All they see is war and conflict of their own making. To complain that events did not result in an outcome meeting the "wishes or best interest of the Palestinians" is merely prima facie evidence of a unproductive people, following an inept leadership, furthering a failed state of Jihadist and terrorists.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

et al,

I think that Lamis Deek of Al-Awda-NY is one of those make believe Palestinians that just want to continue the advocation of struggle, and such the dismantlement (destruction) of Israel.

This is not an advocate for peace.

Most Respectfully,
R

Israel's version of peace is all of Palestine without the Palestinians. This has been their goal for a hundred years.

Any Palestinian who disagrees with Israel's version is not an advocate for peace.

Just to show you how stupid this woman is, she says that the partition plan never went to the security council for approval and therefore Israel is illegal. Well then so is Palestine, because they used resolution 181 in 1988 as a basis to declare independence, just like Israel did.

Whoops !

She is not stupid. The Security Council never implemented Resolution 181. I have been saying that for years. It doesn't matter how much verbosity Rocco throws at it, it is true. It did not happen.

As far as the 1988 declaration being illegal, good point. It does have some related issues. However, there is still Palestine's 1948 declaration that does not mention Resolution 181.

You are completely deflecting again. Did you read the link I posted? The Palestinians used 181 to declare independence in 1988. There was no valid declaration of independence in 1948. You can't declare independence twice and have both of them be valid. I've done searches online for Palestinian declaration of independence and nothing about 1948 come up.

What was different that one declaration would be valid and the other not?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I have no problem with the timeline.

In 1917 Britain occupied that area. It was the occupying power over enemy territory. During that time treaties defined the future international borders of Palestine and the other new countries in the region.

(COMMENT)

For the most part, this is correct. However, the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 16 MAY 1916 actually set the stage between the French Mandates and the British Mandates.

When the Treaty of Lausanne was ratified in 1924, Palestine ceased to be enemy territory ending Britain's occupation. Palestine came into existence as a "successor state" like the other new countries in that region.

(COMMENT)

The 1924 Treaty of Lausanne had nothing to do whatsoever with "Palestine" and the boundaries thereto. The Treaty of Lausanne does not mention Palestine at all. By the Treaty of Lausanne, what you call Palestine was included in the District of Syria. What set the definition of Palestine was the 1922 Palestine Order in Council:

This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."

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

Palestine's international borders had already been defined.The Palestinian nationality was recognized and they were citizens of Palestine.

(COMMENT)

I think you have this wrong.

BLUF: The "successor government" to the British Mandate portion of the former Ottoman District of Damascus, in the State of Syria (in which the Mandate of Palestine fell - Syria being divided by the Syke-Picot Agreement), was the High Commissioner, administering the Government of Palestine, acting by and with the advice of the Executive Council.

The High Commissioner shall do and execute in due manner all things that shall belong to the said office, according to the tenour of any Orders in Council relating to Palestine and of such Commission as may be issued to him under His Majesty's Sign Manual and Signet, and according to such instructions as may from time to time be given to him, for the purpose of executing the provisions of the Mandate, under His Majesty's Sign Manual and Signet, or by Order of His Majesty in Council or by His Majesty through one of His Principal Secretaries of State, and to such laws and ordinances as are now or shall hereafter be in force in Palestine.

Succession to Government.

7. Whenever the office of High Commissioner is vacant or if the High Commissioner become incapable or be absent from Palestine, or be from any cause prevented from acting in the duties of his office, the person appointed to be Chief Secretary to the Government of Palestine, or if there be no such officer therein, or such officer be unable to act, then such person or persons as His Majesty may appoint under His Sign Manual and Signet and in default of such appointment the Senior Member of the Executive Council shall during His Majesty's pleasure administer the Government of Palestine, first taking the oaths hereinbefore directed to be taken by the High Commissioner and in the manner herein prescribed, which being done, the Chief Secretary or any other such Administrator as aforesaid is hereby authorised, empowered and commanded to do and execute during His Majesty's pleasure, all things that belong to the office of the High Commissioner according to the tenour of this Order, and according to His Majesty's Instructions as aforesaid, and the laws of Palestine.​

​

The Palestinian nationality and citizenship of the immigrants to, and the inhabitance of, Palestine (as defined by the Palestine Order in Council) where the province of the High Commissioner; not the hands or power of the immigrants or that of the inhabitants.

WHEREAS "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922," provides for the constitution of a Legislative Council in Palestine, and for the election of part of the members of the Council, and it is necessary to prescribe the system of election of such members;

And whereas by treaty, capitulation, grant, usage, sufferance and other lawful means, His Majesty has power and jurisdiction within Palestine:

NOW THEREFORE His Majesty, by virtue and in exercise of the powers in this behalf by the Foreign Jurisdiction Act, 1890, or otherwise in His Majesty vested, is pleased by and with the advice of his Privy Council to order, and it is hereby ordered as follows:--

Title.	1. This Order may be cited as the Palestine Legislative Council Election Order, 1922.
Definition.	2. In this Order, unless the contrary intention appears,
	"Secretary of State" means one of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State.
	"Register of voters" or "register" means the register prepared in accordance with this Order of the persons entitled to vote for the election of a member of the Legislative Council.
	"Member" means a member of the Legislative Council.
	"District" means one of the administrative divisions into which Palestine may be divided by the High Commissioner.
	For the purposes of this Order and pending the introduction of an Order in Council regulating Palestinian citizenship, the following persons shall be deemed to be Palestinian citizens:--
	(a)Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the date of commencement of this Order.​
	(b)All persons of other than Turkish nationality habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the said date, who shall within two calendar months of the said date make application for Palestinian citizenship in such form and before such officer as may be prescribed by the High Commissioner.​

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

​

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

"The Palestinian Citizenship Order in Council, 1925, facilitates the acquisition of Palestinian nationality by persons settling in the country, including those who opted for Palestinian citizenship under the Palestine Legislative Council Election Order in Council, 1922. The Palestinian Citizenship Order in Council which was made in August, 1925, provides for the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by persons habitually resident in the country who were Ottoman subjects, and persons who were foreign subjects and take up permanent residence."

As the indigenous population of Palestine, they had inherent, inalienable rights:

To self determination without external interference.
To independence and sovereignty.
To territorial integrity.
​

​

(COMMENT)

These three considerations, supra, are not unique to the Arab Palestinian. They are just as applicable to the Jewish People. The "rights" follow the people and not the territory or the sovereignty. And these "rights" were not universally recognized in the first decade of the 20th century as they are now, a century later.

Anything that happened after that time that was against the wishes or best interest of the Palestinians was a violation of their inalienable rights.

(COMMENT)

Nonsense. The Palestinian people and the territory considered Palestine, were not even invented until the Allied Occupation and Mandate. Just when did these artificial people discover these "inherent, inalienable rights?" When did these people ever exercise these rights.

What are the Palestinian Leaders doing today that actually result in something tangible and in the best interest of the Palestinians. The Palestinian can stand and look 360 degrees - an not see evidence of a thriving and productive government. All they see is war and conflict of their own making. To complain that events did not result in an outcome meeting the "wishes or best interest of the Palestinians" is merely prima facie evidence of a unproductive people, following an inept leadership, furthering a failed state of Jihadist and terrorists.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are jumping all over the place. What Britain could do as the occupying power over enemy territory was different than what it could do as the trustee of mandate territory.

 

[toastman]

et al,

I think that Lamis Deek of Al-Awda-NY is one of those make believe Palestinians that just want to continue the advocation of struggle, and such the dismantlement (destruction) of Israel.

This is not an advocate for peace.

Most Respectfully,
R

Israel's version of peace is all of Palestine without the Palestinians. This has been their goal for a hundred years.

Any Palestinian who disagrees with Israel's version is not an advocate for peace.

Just to show you how stupid this woman is, she says that the partition plan never went to the security council for approval and therefore Israel is illegal. Well then so is Palestine, because they used resolution 181 in 1988 as a basis to declare independence, just like Israel did.

Whoops !

She is not stupid. The Security Council never implemented Resolution 181. I have been saying that for years. It doesn't matter how much verbosity Rocco throws at it, it is true. It did not happen.

As far as the 1988 declaration being illegal, good point. It does have some related issues. However, there is still Palestine's 1948 declaration that does not mention Resolution 181.

You are completely deflecting again. Did you read the link I posted? The Palestinians used 181 to declare independence in 1988. There was no valid declaration of independence in 1948. You can't declare independence twice and have both of them be valid. I've done searches online for Palestinian declaration of independence and nothing about 1948 come up.

What was different that one declaration would be valid and the other not?

It's common sense. If a country declared independence twice, then it's obvious that the first one didn't work out since thet needed to do it again.

In the case of the Palestinians, they tried to declare independence on land that Israel had declared independence a few weeks (or months earlier).
Obviously if that declaration was valid,they would not have done it again in 1988

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I have no problem with the timeline.

In 1917 Britain occupied that area. It was the occupying power over enemy territory. During that time treaties defined the future international borders of Palestine and the other new countries in the region.

(COMMENT)

For the most part, this is correct. However, the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 16 MAY 1916 actually set the stage between the French Mandates and the British Mandates.

When the Treaty of Lausanne was ratified in 1924, Palestine ceased to be enemy territory ending Britain's occupation. Palestine came into existence as a "successor state" like the other new countries in that region.

(COMMENT)

The 1924 Treaty of Lausanne had nothing to do whatsoever with "Palestine" and the boundaries thereto. The Treaty of Lausanne does not mention Palestine at all. By the Treaty of Lausanne, what you call Palestine was included in the District of Syria. What set the definition of Palestine was the 1922 Palestine Order in Council:

This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."

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

Palestine's international borders had already been defined.The Palestinian nationality was recognized and they were citizens of Palestine.

(COMMENT)

I think you have this wrong.

BLUF: The "successor government" to the British Mandate portion of the former Ottoman District of Damascus, in the State of Syria (in which the Mandate of Palestine fell - Syria being divided by the Syke-Picot Agreement), was the High Commissioner, administering the Government of Palestine, acting by and with the advice of the Executive Council.

The High Commissioner shall do and execute in due manner all things that shall belong to the said office, according to the tenour of any Orders in Council relating to Palestine and of such Commission as may be issued to him under His Majesty's Sign Manual and Signet, and according to such instructions as may from time to time be given to him, for the purpose of executing the provisions of the Mandate, under His Majesty's Sign Manual and Signet, or by Order of His Majesty in Council or by His Majesty through one of His Principal Secretaries of State, and to such laws and ordinances as are now or shall hereafter be in force in Palestine.

Succession to Government.

7. Whenever the office of High Commissioner is vacant or if the High Commissioner become incapable or be absent from Palestine, or be from any cause prevented from acting in the duties of his office, the person appointed to be Chief Secretary to the Government of Palestine, or if there be no such officer therein, or such officer be unable to act, then such person or persons as His Majesty may appoint under His Sign Manual and Signet and in default of such appointment the Senior Member of the Executive Council shall during His Majesty's pleasure administer the Government of Palestine, first taking the oaths hereinbefore directed to be taken by the High Commissioner and in the manner herein prescribed, which being done, the Chief Secretary or any other such Administrator as aforesaid is hereby authorised, empowered and commanded to do and execute during His Majesty's pleasure, all things that belong to the office of the High Commissioner according to the tenour of this Order, and according to His Majesty's Instructions as aforesaid, and the laws of Palestine.​

​

The Palestinian nationality and citizenship of the immigrants to, and the inhabitance of, Palestine (as defined by the Palestine Order in Council) where the province of the High Commissioner; not the hands or power of the immigrants or that of the inhabitants.

WHEREAS "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922," provides for the constitution of a Legislative Council in Palestine, and for the election of part of the members of the Council, and it is necessary to prescribe the system of election of such members;

And whereas by treaty, capitulation, grant, usage, sufferance and other lawful means, His Majesty has power and jurisdiction within Palestine:

NOW THEREFORE His Majesty, by virtue and in exercise of the powers in this behalf by the Foreign Jurisdiction Act, 1890, or otherwise in His Majesty vested, is pleased by and with the advice of his Privy Council to order, and it is hereby ordered as follows:--

Title.	1. This Order may be cited as the Palestine Legislative Council Election Order, 1922.
Definition.	2. In this Order, unless the contrary intention appears,
	"Secretary of State" means one of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State.
	"Register of voters" or "register" means the register prepared in accordance with this Order of the persons entitled to vote for the election of a member of the Legislative Council.
	"Member" means a member of the Legislative Council.
	"District" means one of the administrative divisions into which Palestine may be divided by the High Commissioner.
	For the purposes of this Order and pending the introduction of an Order in Council regulating Palestinian citizenship, the following persons shall be deemed to be Palestinian citizens:--
	(a)Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the date of commencement of this Order.​
	(b)All persons of other than Turkish nationality habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the said date, who shall within two calendar months of the said date make application for Palestinian citizenship in such form and before such officer as may be prescribed by the High Commissioner.​

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

​

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

"The Palestinian Citizenship Order in Council, 1925, facilitates the acquisition of Palestinian nationality by persons settling in the country, including those who opted for Palestinian citizenship under the Palestine Legislative Council Election Order in Council, 1922. The Palestinian Citizenship Order in Council which was made in August, 1925, provides for the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by persons habitually resident in the country who were Ottoman subjects, and persons who were foreign subjects and take up permanent residence."

As the indigenous population of Palestine, they had inherent, inalienable rights:

To self determination without external interference.
To independence and sovereignty.
To territorial integrity.
​

​

(COMMENT)

These three considerations, supra, are not unique to the Arab Palestinian. They are just as applicable to the Jewish People. The "rights" follow the people and not the territory or the sovereignty. And these "rights" were not universally recognized in the first decade of the 20th century as they are now, a century later.

Anything that happened after that time that was against the wishes or best interest of the Palestinians was a violation of their inalienable rights.

(COMMENT)

Nonsense. The Palestinian people and the territory considered Palestine, were not even invented until the Allied Occupation and Mandate. Just when did these artificial people discover these "inherent, inalienable rights?" When did these people ever exercise these rights.

What are the Palestinian Leaders doing today that actually result in something tangible and in the best interest of the Palestinians. The Palestinian can stand and look 360 degrees - an not see evidence of a thriving and productive government. All they see is war and conflict of their own making. To complain that events did not result in an outcome meeting the "wishes or best interest of the Palestinians" is merely prima facie evidence of a unproductive people, following an inept leadership, furthering a failed state of Jihadist and terrorists.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are jumping all over the place. What Britain could do as the occupying power over enemy territory was different than what it could do as the trustee of mandate territory.

Ok, but the Treaty of Lausanne had nothing to do with Palestine.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Israel's version of peace is all of Palestine without the Palestinians. This has been their goal for a hundred years.

Any Palestinian who disagrees with Israel's version is not an advocate for peace.

Just to show you how stupid this woman is, she says that the partition plan never went to the security council for approval and therefore Israel is illegal. Well then so is Palestine, because they used resolution 181 in 1988 as a basis to declare independence, just like Israel did.

Whoops !

She is not stupid. The Security Council never implemented Resolution 181. I have been saying that for years. It doesn't matter how much verbosity Rocco throws at it, it is true. It did not happen.

As far as the 1988 declaration being illegal, good point. It does have some related issues. However, there is still Palestine's 1948 declaration that does not mention Resolution 181.

You are completely deflecting again. Did you read the link I posted? The Palestinians used 181 to declare independence in 1988. There was no valid declaration of independence in 1948. You can't declare independence twice and have both of them be valid. I've done searches online for Palestinian declaration of independence and nothing about 1948 come up.

What was different that one declaration would be valid and the other not?

It's common sense. If a country declared independence twice, then it's obvious that the first one didn't work out since thet needed to do it again.

In the case of the Palestinians, they tried to declare independence on land that Israel had declared independence a few weeks (or months earlier).
Obviously if that declaration was valid,they would not have done it again in 1988

That is a common Fallacy.

Post a 1948 map of Israel showing what Israeli territory was claimed by the Palestinian's 1948 declaration.

 

[toastman]

Just to show you how stupid this woman is, she says that the partition plan never went to the security council for approval and therefore Israel is illegal. Well then so is Palestine, because they used resolution 181 in 1988 as a basis to declare independence, just like Israel did.

Whoops !

She is not stupid. The Security Council never implemented Resolution 181. I have been saying that for years. It doesn't matter how much verbosity Rocco throws at it, it is true. It did not happen.

As far as the 1988 declaration being illegal, good point. It does have some related issues. However, there is still Palestine's 1948 declaration that does not mention Resolution 181.

You are completely deflecting again. Did you read the link I posted? The Palestinians used 181 to declare independence in 1988. There was no valid declaration of independence in 1948. You can't declare independence twice and have both of them be valid. I've done searches online for Palestinian declaration of independence and nothing about 1948 come up.

What was different that one declaration would be valid and the other not?

It's common sense. If a country declared independence twice, then it's obvious that the first one didn't work out since thet needed to do it again.

In the case of the Palestinians, they tried to declare independence on land that Israel had declared independence a few weeks (or months earlier).
Obviously if that declaration was valid,they would not have done it again in 1988

That is a common Fallacy.

Post a 1948 map of Israel showing what Israeli territory was claimed by the Palestinian's 1948 declaration.

You're playing this stupid game again Tinmore

Israel declared independence on the land allotted to it in the partition plan.

The Palestinians tried to declare independence on that land (and more) AFTER Israel did so. Why you have a hard time accepting this fact is beyond me.

 

[P F Tinmore]

She is not stupid. The Security Council never implemented Resolution 181. I have been saying that for years. It doesn't matter how much verbosity Rocco throws at it, it is true. It did not happen.

As far as the 1988 declaration being illegal, good point. It does have some related issues. However, there is still Palestine's 1948 declaration that does not mention Resolution 181.

You are completely deflecting again. Did you read the link I posted? The Palestinians used 181 to declare independence in 1988. There was no valid declaration of independence in 1948. You can't declare independence twice and have both of them be valid. I've done searches online for Palestinian declaration of independence and nothing about 1948 come up.

What was different that one declaration would be valid and the other not?

It's common sense. If a country declared independence twice, then it's obvious that the first one didn't work out since thet needed to do it again.

In the case of the Palestinians, they tried to declare independence on land that Israel had declared independence a few weeks (or months earlier).
Obviously if that declaration was valid,they would not have done it again in 1988

That is a common Fallacy.

Post a 1948 map of Israel showing what Israeli territory was claimed by the Palestinian's 1948 declaration.

You're playing this stupid game again Tinmore

Israel declared independence on the land allotted to it in the partition plan.

The Palestinians tried to declare independence on that land (and more) AFTER Israel did so. Why you have a hard time accepting this fact is beyond me.

No it didn't. Remember, Resolution 181 did not happen.

Israel never claimed those proposed borders and nobody has ever recognized them.

 

[toastman]

You are completely deflecting again. Did you read the link I posted? The Palestinians used 181 to declare independence in 1988. There was no valid declaration of independence in 1948. You can't declare independence twice and have both of them be valid. I've done searches online for Palestinian declaration of independence and nothing about 1948 come up.

What was different that one declaration would be valid and the other not?

It's common sense. If a country declared independence twice, then it's obvious that the first one didn't work out since thet needed to do it again.

In the case of the Palestinians, they tried to declare independence on land that Israel had declared independence a few weeks (or months earlier).
Obviously if that declaration was valid,they would not have done it again in 1988

That is a common Fallacy.

Post a 1948 map of Israel showing what Israeli territory was claimed by the Palestinian's 1948 declaration.

You're playing this stupid game again Tinmore

Israel declared independence on the land allotted to it in the partition plan.

The Palestinians tried to declare independence on that land (and more) AFTER Israel did so. Why you have a hard time accepting this fact is beyond me.

No it didn't. Remember, Resolution 181 did not happen.

Israel never claimed those proposed borders and nobody has ever recognized them.

You are completely deflecting again. Did you read the link I posted? The Palestinians used 181 to declare independence in 1988. There was no valid declaration of independence in 1948. You can't declare independence twice and have both of them be valid. I've done searches online for Palestinian declaration of independence and nothing about 1948 come up.

What was different that one declaration would be valid and the other not?

It's common sense. If a country declared independence twice, then it's obvious that the first one didn't work out since thet needed to do it again.

In the case of the Palestinians, they tried to declare independence on land that Israel had declared independence a few weeks (or months earlier).
Obviously if that declaration was valid,they would not have done it again in 1988

That is a common Fallacy.

Post a 1948 map of Israel showing what Israeli territory was claimed by the Palestinian's 1948 declaration.

You're playing this stupid game again Tinmore

Israel declared independence on the land allotted to it in the partition plan.

The Palestinians tried to declare independence on that land (and more) AFTER Israel did so. Why you have a hard time accepting this fact is beyond me.

No it didn't. Remember, Resolution 181 did not happen.

Israel never claimed those proposed borders and nobody has ever recognized them.

Here we go again

Israel legally declared independence on the land allotted to it in the partition plan. That is a fact. That is how Israel was created.

Palestine declared independence in 1988 THE SAME WAY that Israel did.

Resolution 181 was not implemented like planned, BUT both used it as a legal basis to declare independence.

 

[P F Tinmore]

She is not stupid. The Security Council never implemented Resolution 181. I have been saying that for years. It doesn't matter how much verbosity Rocco throws at it, it is true. It did not happen.

As far as the 1988 declaration being illegal, good point. It does have some related issues. However, there is still Palestine's 1948 declaration that does not mention Resolution 181.

You are completely deflecting again. Did you read the link I posted? The Palestinians used 181 to declare independence in 1988. There was no valid declaration of independence in 1948. You can't declare independence twice and have both of them be valid. I've done searches online for Palestinian declaration of independence and nothing about 1948 come up.

What was different that one declaration would be valid and the other not?

It's common sense. If a country declared independence twice, then it's obvious that the first one didn't work out since thet needed to do it again.

In the case of the Palestinians, they tried to declare independence on land that Israel had declared independence a few weeks (or months earlier).
Obviously if that declaration was valid,they would not have done it again in 1988

That is a common Fallacy.

Post a 1948 map of Israel showing what Israeli territory was claimed by the Palestinian's 1948 declaration.

You're playing this stupid game again Tinmore

Israel declared independence on the land allotted to it in the partition plan.

The Palestinians tried to declare independence on that land (and more) AFTER Israel did so. Why you have a hard time accepting this fact is beyond me.

No I am not. I just want you to prove your point.

I await your response.