Who Are The Palestinians?

[Phoenall]

toastman, Phoenall, et al,

This is back to the disputes on "border issue" and the arguments on the scope and nature of "recognition." There are people like "P F Tinmore" who desperately attempt to hold onto the notion that:

• the territory to which the former Mandate of Palestine applied (less that territory recognized by the HM the King of England as sovereign unto the Emir of Trans-Jordan) was under (some heretofore unknown) Arab Sovereignty;
• the territory to which was once described as formerly belonged to the Ottoman Empire, and surrendered to the Allied Powers, was under Arab Sovereignty;
• the territory to which was once described as formerly belonged to the Ottoman Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by Allied Powers, was under Arab Sovereignty;
• the territory Short-Titled and named "Palestine" by the Allied Powers was somehow granted sovereignty to an unknown Arab Leader:
  • and govern by an unknown Arab body,
  • which exercised some unknown Arab law,
  • over a people granted citizenship and a nationality by the law of the Allied Powers.

Most Respectfully,
R

Who are you trying to fool. I never said any of that.

I don't see any border disputes. I see a lot of say so and lies.

With regard to the northern border of Palestine, Britain and France (the occupying powers at the time, and later the mandatory powers over Syria and Lebanon respectively) signed an agreement which settled key aspects relating to the Palestinian-Syrian-Lebanese border (Paris, 23 December 1920).20 The British High Commissioner of Palestine and the French High Commissioner of Syria and Lebanon reached, at Jerusalem on 16 December 1923, a complementary agreement on border issues.21 On 2 February 1926, the agreement was replaced by the Bon Voisinage Agreement to Regulate Certain Administrative Matters in Connection with the Frontier between Palestine and Syria [including Lebanon].22

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel​

What was the status of these borders in 1949? (After the Mandate left Palestine.)

2. The basic purpose of the Armistice Demarcation Line is to delineate the line beyond which the armed forces of the respective Parties shall not move.

1. The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the international boundary between the Lebanon and Palestine.

Where the existing truce lines run along the international boundary between Syria and Palestine, the Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the boundary line

The Avalon Project Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement March 23 1949
The Avalon Project Israeli-Syrian General Armistice Agreement July 20 1949​

Note that the armistice lines did not divide Israel from the other countries. They were merely lines that the armed forces could not cross. They did not define territory. The international boundaries defined territories.

The southwestern border of Palestine with Egypt dates back to the late 19th century. Originally, this border was drawn up on a de facto basis, as the Ottoman Empire recognized Egypt’s autonomy.27 Formally, however, two border agreements between the Ottoman Empire and Egypt were reached in 1906. The first came in the form of an Exchange of Notes between Britain [which was controlling Egypt since 1882] and Turkey relative to the Maintenance of the Status Quo in the Sinai Peninsula, signed in Constantinople on 14 May.28 The second and more detailed border agreement, was the Agreement between Egypt and Turkey for the fixing of an Administrative Line between the Vilayet [province] of Hejaz and the Governorate [district] of Jerusalem and the Sinai Peninsula, signed in Rafah, on 1 October.29 The separation of Egypt from Turkey (Palestine, in this instance), as of 5 November 1914, was ultimately recognized by the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne.

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel​

What was the status of this border in 1949? (After the Mandate left Palestine.)

1. The principle that no military or political advantage should be gained under the truce ordered by the Security Council is recognized.

2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary,...

2. The area thus demilitarized shall be as follows: From a point on the Egypt-Palestine frontier five (5) kilometres north-west of the intersection of the Rafah-El Auja road and the frontier (MR 08750468), south-east to Khashm El Mamdud (MR 09650414), thence south-east to Hill 405 (MR 10780285), thence south-west to a point on the Egypt-Palestine frontier five (5) kilometres southeast of the intersection of the old railway tracks and the frontier (MR 09950145), thence returning north-west along the Egypt-Palestine frontier to the point of origin.

4. The road Taba-Qouseima-Auja shall not be employed by any military forces whatsoever for the purpose of entering Palestine.

The Avalon Project Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement February 24 1949​

Note that the Palestine side of the Egypt-Palestine frontier was still called Palestine in 1949.

The eastern border of Palestine with Trans-Jordan was of particular significance.8 The Palestine Mandate originally incorporated the territory of Trans-Jordan within the scope of ‘Palestine.’ Article 25 of the Mandate accorded Britain the power, “with consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as… may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions.” Subsequently, on 16 September 1922, the Council of the League of Nations passed a resolution by which it approved a proposal submitted by Britain to exclude Trans-Jordan from the scope of Palestine’s territory.9 Ultimately, the border between Palestine and Trans-Jordan was fixed as suggested by Britain.10

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel​

Due to the occupation of the West Bank and other previously arranged demilitarized zones, the armistice line did not follow the border between Jordan and Palestine. However there was an interesting statement.

(d) In the sector from a point on the Dead Sea (MR 1925-0958) to the southernmost tip of Palestine, the Armistice Demarcation Line shall be determined by existing military positions...

The Avalon Project Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement April 3 1949​

The southernmost tip of Palestine was still called Palestine in 1949.

This confirms the creation of Palestine's international borders and that they remained unchanged in 1949. This is the start point of any discussions on land and borders not some political say so decades in the future..

Once again you confuse Mandate of Palestine borders with the borders of the non existent nation of Palestine. Those same borders were the proposed borders of the Jewish National Home and entered into International law as such. This answers many of your questions including what are the borders of Israel under International law, what treaty set them up and what land does Israel have.

Try reading the notes attached to all the links you produce and see where you are getting things wrong.

I'm not going down a rabbit hole looking for something that isn't there. If you can't tell me what I am looking for I won't be able to find it.

I have told you where to look and still you refuse to do it. Like all the times you ask for the same links to be posted. As I said you confuse the Mandate for Palestine with the British Mandate. The LoN clearly stated that the borders were those of the Mandate for Palestine, not the nation of Palestine. To make things easier for everyone the Mandate for Palestine was abbreviated to Palestine without conferring statehood to the Mandate for Palestine. Those self same borders exist today and are now the International borders of Egypt/ Israel and Jordan/ Israel and the armistice lines between Syria/Israel and Lebanon/Israel. There are no international borders of the nation of Palestine until they fulfil the terms of the UN charter they signed last year.

 

[P F Tinmore]

toastman, Phoenall, et al,

This is back to the disputes on "border issue" and the arguments on the scope and nature of "recognition." There are people like "P F Tinmore" who desperately attempt to hold onto the notion that:

• the territory to which the former Mandate of Palestine applied (less that territory recognized by the HM the King of England as sovereign unto the Emir of Trans-Jordan) was under (some heretofore unknown) Arab Sovereignty;
• the territory to which was once described as formerly belonged to the Ottoman Empire, and surrendered to the Allied Powers, was under Arab Sovereignty;
• the territory to which was once described as formerly belonged to the Ottoman Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by Allied Powers, was under Arab Sovereignty;
• the territory Short-Titled and named "Palestine" by the Allied Powers was somehow granted sovereignty to an unknown Arab Leader:
  • and govern by an unknown Arab body,
  • which exercised some unknown Arab law,
  • over a people granted citizenship and a nationality by the law of the Allied Powers.

Most Respectfully,
R

Who are you trying to fool. I never said any of that.

I don't see any border disputes. I see a lot of say so and lies.

With regard to the northern border of Palestine, Britain and France (the occupying powers at the time, and later the mandatory powers over Syria and Lebanon respectively) signed an agreement which settled key aspects relating to the Palestinian-Syrian-Lebanese border (Paris, 23 December 1920).20 The British High Commissioner of Palestine and the French High Commissioner of Syria and Lebanon reached, at Jerusalem on 16 December 1923, a complementary agreement on border issues.21 On 2 February 1926, the agreement was replaced by the Bon Voisinage Agreement to Regulate Certain Administrative Matters in Connection with the Frontier between Palestine and Syria [including Lebanon].22

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel​

What was the status of these borders in 1949? (After the Mandate left Palestine.)

2. The basic purpose of the Armistice Demarcation Line is to delineate the line beyond which the armed forces of the respective Parties shall not move.

1. The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the international boundary between the Lebanon and Palestine.

Where the existing truce lines run along the international boundary between Syria and Palestine, the Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the boundary line

The Avalon Project Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement March 23 1949
The Avalon Project Israeli-Syrian General Armistice Agreement July 20 1949​

Note that the armistice lines did not divide Israel from the other countries. They were merely lines that the armed forces could not cross. They did not define territory. The international boundaries defined territories.

The southwestern border of Palestine with Egypt dates back to the late 19th century. Originally, this border was drawn up on a de facto basis, as the Ottoman Empire recognized Egypt’s autonomy.27 Formally, however, two border agreements between the Ottoman Empire and Egypt were reached in 1906. The first came in the form of an Exchange of Notes between Britain [which was controlling Egypt since 1882] and Turkey relative to the Maintenance of the Status Quo in the Sinai Peninsula, signed in Constantinople on 14 May.28 The second and more detailed border agreement, was the Agreement between Egypt and Turkey for the fixing of an Administrative Line between the Vilayet [province] of Hejaz and the Governorate [district] of Jerusalem and the Sinai Peninsula, signed in Rafah, on 1 October.29 The separation of Egypt from Turkey (Palestine, in this instance), as of 5 November 1914, was ultimately recognized by the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne.

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel​

What was the status of this border in 1949? (After the Mandate left Palestine.)

1. The principle that no military or political advantage should be gained under the truce ordered by the Security Council is recognized.

2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary,...

2. The area thus demilitarized shall be as follows: From a point on the Egypt-Palestine frontier five (5) kilometres north-west of the intersection of the Rafah-El Auja road and the frontier (MR 08750468), south-east to Khashm El Mamdud (MR 09650414), thence south-east to Hill 405 (MR 10780285), thence south-west to a point on the Egypt-Palestine frontier five (5) kilometres southeast of the intersection of the old railway tracks and the frontier (MR 09950145), thence returning north-west along the Egypt-Palestine frontier to the point of origin.

4. The road Taba-Qouseima-Auja shall not be employed by any military forces whatsoever for the purpose of entering Palestine.

The Avalon Project Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement February 24 1949​

Note that the Palestine side of the Egypt-Palestine frontier was still called Palestine in 1949.

The eastern border of Palestine with Trans-Jordan was of particular significance.8 The Palestine Mandate originally incorporated the territory of Trans-Jordan within the scope of ‘Palestine.’ Article 25 of the Mandate accorded Britain the power, “with consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as… may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions.” Subsequently, on 16 September 1922, the Council of the League of Nations passed a resolution by which it approved a proposal submitted by Britain to exclude Trans-Jordan from the scope of Palestine’s territory.9 Ultimately, the border between Palestine and Trans-Jordan was fixed as suggested by Britain.10

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel​

Due to the occupation of the West Bank and other previously arranged demilitarized zones, the armistice line did not follow the border between Jordan and Palestine. However there was an interesting statement.

(d) In the sector from a point on the Dead Sea (MR 1925-0958) to the southernmost tip of Palestine, the Armistice Demarcation Line shall be determined by existing military positions...

The Avalon Project Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement April 3 1949​

The southernmost tip of Palestine was still called Palestine in 1949.

This confirms the creation of Palestine's international borders and that they remained unchanged in 1949. This is the start point of any discussions on land and borders not some political say so decades in the future..

Once again you confuse Mandate of Palestine borders with the borders of the non existent nation of Palestine. Those same borders were the proposed borders of the Jewish National Home and entered into International law as such. This answers many of your questions including what are the borders of Israel under International law, what treaty set them up and what land does Israel have.

Try reading the notes attached to all the links you produce and see where you are getting things wrong.

I'm not going down a rabbit hole looking for something that isn't there. If you can't tell me what I am looking for I won't be able to find it.

I have told you where to look and still you refuse to do it. Like all the times you ask for the same links to be posted. As I said you confuse the Mandate for Palestine with the British Mandate. The LoN clearly stated that the borders were those of the Mandate for Palestine, not the nation of Palestine. To make things easier for everyone the Mandate for Palestine was abbreviated to Palestine without conferring statehood to the Mandate for Palestine. Those self same borders exist today and are now the International borders of Egypt/ Israel and Jordan/ Israel and the armistice lines between Syria/Israel and Lebanon/Israel. There are no international borders of the nation of Palestine until they fulfil the terms of the UN charter they signed last year.

Which Mandate owned the land?

Link?

 

[MJB12741]

toastman, Phoenall, et al,

This is back to the disputes on "border issue" and the arguments on the scope and nature of "recognition." There are people like "P F Tinmore" who desperately attempt to hold onto the notion that:

• the territory to which the former Mandate of Palestine applied (less that territory recognized by the HM the King of England as sovereign unto the Emir of Trans-Jordan) was under (some heretofore unknown) Arab Sovereignty;
• the territory to which was once described as formerly belonged to the Ottoman Empire, and surrendered to the Allied Powers, was under Arab Sovereignty;
• the territory to which was once described as formerly belonged to the Ottoman Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by Allied Powers, was under Arab Sovereignty;
• the territory Short-Titled and named "Palestine" by the Allied Powers was somehow granted sovereignty to an unknown Arab Leader:
  • and govern by an unknown Arab body,
  • which exercised some unknown Arab law,
  • over a people granted citizenship and a nationality by the law of the Allied Powers.

Most Respectfully,
R

Who are you trying to fool. I never said any of that.

I don't see any border disputes. I see a lot of say so and lies.

With regard to the northern border of Palestine, Britain and France (the occupying powers at the time, and later the mandatory powers over Syria and Lebanon respectively) signed an agreement which settled key aspects relating to the Palestinian-Syrian-Lebanese border (Paris, 23 December 1920).20 The British High Commissioner of Palestine and the French High Commissioner of Syria and Lebanon reached, at Jerusalem on 16 December 1923, a complementary agreement on border issues.21 On 2 February 1926, the agreement was replaced by the Bon Voisinage Agreement to Regulate Certain Administrative Matters in Connection with the Frontier between Palestine and Syria [including Lebanon].22

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel​

What was the status of these borders in 1949? (After the Mandate left Palestine.)

2. The basic purpose of the Armistice Demarcation Line is to delineate the line beyond which the armed forces of the respective Parties shall not move.

1. The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the international boundary between the Lebanon and Palestine.

Where the existing truce lines run along the international boundary between Syria and Palestine, the Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the boundary line

The Avalon Project Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement March 23 1949
The Avalon Project Israeli-Syrian General Armistice Agreement July 20 1949​

Note that the armistice lines did not divide Israel from the other countries. They were merely lines that the armed forces could not cross. They did not define territory. The international boundaries defined territories.

The southwestern border of Palestine with Egypt dates back to the late 19th century. Originally, this border was drawn up on a de facto basis, as the Ottoman Empire recognized Egypt’s autonomy.27 Formally, however, two border agreements between the Ottoman Empire and Egypt were reached in 1906. The first came in the form of an Exchange of Notes between Britain [which was controlling Egypt since 1882] and Turkey relative to the Maintenance of the Status Quo in the Sinai Peninsula, signed in Constantinople on 14 May.28 The second and more detailed border agreement, was the Agreement between Egypt and Turkey for the fixing of an Administrative Line between the Vilayet [province] of Hejaz and the Governorate [district] of Jerusalem and the Sinai Peninsula, signed in Rafah, on 1 October.29 The separation of Egypt from Turkey (Palestine, in this instance), as of 5 November 1914, was ultimately recognized by the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne.

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel​

What was the status of this border in 1949? (After the Mandate left Palestine.)

1. The principle that no military or political advantage should be gained under the truce ordered by the Security Council is recognized.

2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary,...

2. The area thus demilitarized shall be as follows: From a point on the Egypt-Palestine frontier five (5) kilometres north-west of the intersection of the Rafah-El Auja road and the frontier (MR 08750468), south-east to Khashm El Mamdud (MR 09650414), thence south-east to Hill 405 (MR 10780285), thence south-west to a point on the Egypt-Palestine frontier five (5) kilometres southeast of the intersection of the old railway tracks and the frontier (MR 09950145), thence returning north-west along the Egypt-Palestine frontier to the point of origin.

4. The road Taba-Qouseima-Auja shall not be employed by any military forces whatsoever for the purpose of entering Palestine.

The Avalon Project Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement February 24 1949​

Note that the Palestine side of the Egypt-Palestine frontier was still called Palestine in 1949.

The eastern border of Palestine with Trans-Jordan was of particular significance.8 The Palestine Mandate originally incorporated the territory of Trans-Jordan within the scope of ‘Palestine.’ Article 25 of the Mandate accorded Britain the power, “with consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as… may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions.” Subsequently, on 16 September 1922, the Council of the League of Nations passed a resolution by which it approved a proposal submitted by Britain to exclude Trans-Jordan from the scope of Palestine’s territory.9 Ultimately, the border between Palestine and Trans-Jordan was fixed as suggested by Britain.10

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel​

Due to the occupation of the West Bank and other previously arranged demilitarized zones, the armistice line did not follow the border between Jordan and Palestine. However there was an interesting statement.

(d) In the sector from a point on the Dead Sea (MR 1925-0958) to the southernmost tip of Palestine, the Armistice Demarcation Line shall be determined by existing military positions...

The Avalon Project Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement April 3 1949​

The southernmost tip of Palestine was still called Palestine in 1949.

This confirms the creation of Palestine's international borders and that they remained unchanged in 1949. This is the start point of any discussions on land and borders not some political say so decades in the future..

Once again you confuse Mandate of Palestine borders with the borders of the non existent nation of Palestine. Those same borders were the proposed borders of the Jewish National Home and entered into International law as such. This answers many of your questions including what are the borders of Israel under International law, what treaty set them up and what land does Israel have.

Try reading the notes attached to all the links you produce and see where you are getting things wrong.

I'm not going down a rabbit hole looking for something that isn't there. If you can't tell me what I am looking for I won't be able to find it.

I have told you where to look and still you refuse to do it. Like all the times you ask for the same links to be posted. As I said you confuse the Mandate for Palestine with the British Mandate. The LoN clearly stated that the borders were those of the Mandate for Palestine, not the nation of Palestine. To make things easier for everyone the Mandate for Palestine was abbreviated to Palestine without conferring statehood to the Mandate for Palestine. Those self same borders exist today and are now the International borders of Egypt/ Israel and Jordan/ Israel and the armistice lines between Syria/Israel and Lebanon/Israel. There are no international borders of the nation of Palestine until they fulfil the terms of the UN charter they signed last year.

Which Mandate owned the land?

Link?

toastman, Phoenall, et al,

This is back to the disputes on "border issue" and the arguments on the scope and nature of "recognition." There are people like "P F Tinmore" who desperately attempt to hold onto the notion that:

• the territory to which the former Mandate of Palestine applied (less that territory recognized by the HM the King of England as sovereign unto the Emir of Trans-Jordan) was under (some heretofore unknown) Arab Sovereignty;
• the territory to which was once described as formerly belonged to the Ottoman Empire, and surrendered to the Allied Powers, was under Arab Sovereignty;
• the territory to which was once described as formerly belonged to the Ottoman Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by Allied Powers, was under Arab Sovereignty;
• the territory Short-Titled and named "Palestine" by the Allied Powers was somehow granted sovereignty to an unknown Arab Leader:
  • and govern by an unknown Arab body,
  • which exercised some unknown Arab law,
  • over a people granted citizenship and a nationality by the law of the Allied Powers.

Most Respectfully,
R

Who are you trying to fool. I never said any of that.

I don't see any border disputes. I see a lot of say so and lies.

With regard to the northern border of Palestine, Britain and France (the occupying powers at the time, and later the mandatory powers over Syria and Lebanon respectively) signed an agreement which settled key aspects relating to the Palestinian-Syrian-Lebanese border (Paris, 23 December 1920).20 The British High Commissioner of Palestine and the French High Commissioner of Syria and Lebanon reached, at Jerusalem on 16 December 1923, a complementary agreement on border issues.21 On 2 February 1926, the agreement was replaced by the Bon Voisinage Agreement to Regulate Certain Administrative Matters in Connection with the Frontier between Palestine and Syria [including Lebanon].22

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel​

What was the status of these borders in 1949? (After the Mandate left Palestine.)

2. The basic purpose of the Armistice Demarcation Line is to delineate the line beyond which the armed forces of the respective Parties shall not move.

1. The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the international boundary between the Lebanon and Palestine.

Where the existing truce lines run along the international boundary between Syria and Palestine, the Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the boundary line

The Avalon Project Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement March 23 1949
The Avalon Project Israeli-Syrian General Armistice Agreement July 20 1949​

Note that the armistice lines did not divide Israel from the other countries. They were merely lines that the armed forces could not cross. They did not define territory. The international boundaries defined territories.

The southwestern border of Palestine with Egypt dates back to the late 19th century. Originally, this border was drawn up on a de facto basis, as the Ottoman Empire recognized Egypt’s autonomy.27 Formally, however, two border agreements between the Ottoman Empire and Egypt were reached in 1906. The first came in the form of an Exchange of Notes between Britain [which was controlling Egypt since 1882] and Turkey relative to the Maintenance of the Status Quo in the Sinai Peninsula, signed in Constantinople on 14 May.28 The second and more detailed border agreement, was the Agreement between Egypt and Turkey for the fixing of an Administrative Line between the Vilayet [province] of Hejaz and the Governorate [district] of Jerusalem and the Sinai Peninsula, signed in Rafah, on 1 October.29 The separation of Egypt from Turkey (Palestine, in this instance), as of 5 November 1914, was ultimately recognized by the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne.

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel​

What was the status of this border in 1949? (After the Mandate left Palestine.)

1. The principle that no military or political advantage should be gained under the truce ordered by the Security Council is recognized.

2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary,...

2. The area thus demilitarized shall be as follows: From a point on the Egypt-Palestine frontier five (5) kilometres north-west of the intersection of the Rafah-El Auja road and the frontier (MR 08750468), south-east to Khashm El Mamdud (MR 09650414), thence south-east to Hill 405 (MR 10780285), thence south-west to a point on the Egypt-Palestine frontier five (5) kilometres southeast of the intersection of the old railway tracks and the frontier (MR 09950145), thence returning north-west along the Egypt-Palestine frontier to the point of origin.

4. The road Taba-Qouseima-Auja shall not be employed by any military forces whatsoever for the purpose of entering Palestine.

The Avalon Project Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement February 24 1949​

Note that the Palestine side of the Egypt-Palestine frontier was still called Palestine in 1949.

The eastern border of Palestine with Trans-Jordan was of particular significance.8 The Palestine Mandate originally incorporated the territory of Trans-Jordan within the scope of ‘Palestine.’ Article 25 of the Mandate accorded Britain the power, “with consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as… may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions.” Subsequently, on 16 September 1922, the Council of the League of Nations passed a resolution by which it approved a proposal submitted by Britain to exclude Trans-Jordan from the scope of Palestine’s territory.9 Ultimately, the border between Palestine and Trans-Jordan was fixed as suggested by Britain.10

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel​

Due to the occupation of the West Bank and other previously arranged demilitarized zones, the armistice line did not follow the border between Jordan and Palestine. However there was an interesting statement.

(d) In the sector from a point on the Dead Sea (MR 1925-0958) to the southernmost tip of Palestine, the Armistice Demarcation Line shall be determined by existing military positions...

The Avalon Project Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement April 3 1949​

The southernmost tip of Palestine was still called Palestine in 1949.

This confirms the creation of Palestine's international borders and that they remained unchanged in 1949. This is the start point of any discussions on land and borders not some political say so decades in the future..

Once again you confuse Mandate of Palestine borders with the borders of the non existent nation of Palestine. Those same borders were the proposed borders of the Jewish National Home and entered into International law as such. This answers many of your questions including what are the borders of Israel under International law, what treaty set them up and what land does Israel have.

Try reading the notes attached to all the links you produce and see where you are getting things wrong.

I'm not going down a rabbit hole looking for something that isn't there. If you can't tell me what I am looking for I won't be able to find it.

I have told you where to look and still you refuse to do it. Like all the times you ask for the same links to be posted. As I said you confuse the Mandate for Palestine with the British Mandate. The LoN clearly stated that the borders were those of the Mandate for Palestine, not the nation of Palestine. To make things easier for everyone the Mandate for Palestine was abbreviated to Palestine without conferring statehood to the Mandate for Palestine. Those self same borders exist today and are now the International borders of Egypt/ Israel and Jordan/ Israel and the armistice lines between Syria/Israel and Lebanon/Israel. There are no international borders of the nation of Palestine until they fulfil the terms of the UN charter they signed last year.

Which Mandate owned the land?

Link?

No titles. No deeds. Get off of Israel's land.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

It does not change the fact that Palestine, in 1949, was a term that was still being politically used by the Arabs, and attempting to assign some quality of a state or political subdivision; which it did not have.

This confirms the creation of Palestine's international borders and that they remained unchanged in 1949. This is the start point of any discussions on land and borders not some political say so decades in the future..

(MINOR CORRECTIONs)

----------------------------------------------------------- FIRST -----------------------------------------------------------​

You noted several times --- using this phrase: "(After the Mandate left Palestine.)"

The "Mandate," a legal instrument of the League of Nations (LoN) --- never went anywhere; it did not leave. The UK, in coordination with the LoN, departed the territory and terminated its role as the Mandatory. The Mandate for Palestine is still valid under:
Article 80 The UN Charter

1. Except as may be agreed upon in individual trusteeship agreements, made under Articles 77, 79, and 81, placing each territory under the trusteeship system, and until such agreements have been concluded, nothing in this Chapter shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties.
2. Paragraph 1 of this Article shall not be interpreted as giving grounds for delay or postponement of the negotiation and conclusion of agreements for placing mandated and other territories under the trusteeship system as provided for in Article 77.

You have used this same argument in you previous thrusts --- Post #582.

----------------------------------------------------------- SECOND -----------------------------------------------------------​

The ‘Centre de Recherche Français à Jérusalem’ (CRFJ), is not an official source or a basis for an official interpretation. The work itself is reputable and worthy, but still an opinion; from Dr. Mutaz M. Qafisheh, Dean, College of Law at Hebron University, oPt. I have read many of his works. This work, which our friend "P F Tinmore" often cites from is a very scholarly effect. But let's be clear, Dr Qafisheh wrote this work for his own kind (fellow students of law) and is Arab Palestinian; framing his argument like any baraster, in a way that best projects his particular point of view. But, --- Dr Qafisheh makes clear --- right in the beginning (Para 2 - Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel) ---

Under the Turkish rule, according to the Ottoman Nationality Law of 19 January 1869, Palestine’s inhabitants were Ottoman citizens. At that time, legally speaking, there was nothing called Palestine, Palestinian nationality, or Palestinians, neither was there anything called Israel, Israeli nationality, or Israelis.​

(COMMENT)

Having given recognition to the Author and the Source, I must point out that the entire piece is political in nature and written to pacify the pro-Palestinian clients that support the Jihadist and Fedayeen view that "Palestine" --- the word, the location and the people of --- simply by using the word --- gives some credence that their is such a thing. As if using the word ghost or vampire makes the thing real. And it does not take long at all for Dr Qafisheh's little thesis to go astray.

Upon its detachment from the Ottomans, the territory of Palestine became distinct from its neighboring countries. In fact, this separation began between Palestine and the newly created Arab ‘states’: Trans-Jordan (as it was called), Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon. Soon thereafter, Palestine’s frontiers acquired permanent recognition through bilateral agreements with its neighbors. Following the international legal framework that had been established by the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne ending the Ottoman nominal/official sovereignty over the Arab Middle East, each of the four countries instituted a separate nationality for its population through domestic legislation. Nationalities in these countries have since then become well established.​

First: "Palestine became distinct from its neighboring countries."
Very misleading!
Correction: Palestine, as a Mandate, became distinct from its neighboring Mandates territories.

Second: "In fact, this separation began between Palestine and the newly created Arab ‘states’: Trans-Jordan (as it was called), Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon."
Very misleading!
Correction: In fact, this separation began between British Mandate for Palestine (which included Trans-Jordan) and the newly created French Mandates: Syria, and Lebanon. Britain seized control of Egypt politically in 1882, gradually eroding Egyptian allegiance from the Ottoman Empire until 1914 when Britain seized total control. Partially independent from the UK in 1922, and total independence in June 1953.

Third: "Soon thereafter, Palestine’s frontiers acquired permanent recognition through bilateral agreements with its neighbors."
Again --- Very Misleading!
Correction: The Territory to which the Mandate for Palestine applied acquired demarcation through the Sykes-Picot Treaty and several other negotiated efforts between the Mandatory Powers.
The difference here is that the "Government of Palestine" was the Administration established by the Mandatory Power. Regionally, there were only two, the French and the British.

Fourth: "Following the international legal framework that had been established by the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne ending the Ottoman nominal/official sovereignty over the Arab Middle East, each of the four countries instituted a separate nationality for its population through domestic legislation."
This is entirely Wrong!!!
---
Correction: "First, the Ottoman Empire and its control over the region ended in 1918 at the signing of the Armistice of Mudros."
NOTE: Palestine: Information with Provenance (PIWP database) Event #1831 Armistice of Mudros -- Ottoman unconditional surrender
Armistice of Mudros, (Oct. 30, 1918), pact signed at the port of Mudros, on the Aegean island of Lemnos, between the Ottoman Empire and Great Britain (representing the Allied powers) marking the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I (1914–18).
Under the terms of the armistice, the Ottomans surrendered their remaining garrisons of Hejaz, Yemen, Syria, Mesopotamia, Tripolitania, and Cyrenaica; the Allies were to occupy the Straits of the Dardanelles and the Bosporus, Batum (now in southwest Georgia), and the Taurus tunnel system; and the Allies won the right to occupy “in case of disorder” the six Armenian provinces in Anatolia and to seize “any strategic points” in case of a threat to Allied security. The Ottoman army was demobilized, and Turkish ports, railways, and other strategic points were made available for use by the Allies.
---
Correction: "Following the international legal framework that had been established by the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne ending the Ottoman nominal/official sovereignty over the Arab Middle East, each of the four countries instituted a separate nationality for its population through domestic legislation. Nationalities in these countries have since then become well established."
This is entirely Wrong!!!
The each of the four countries (Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan) were individual Mandates.

• Lebanon became independent in 1943.
• Syria became independent in 1946.
• Palestine was divided:
  • Jordan (1946)
  • Israel (1948)
  • Palestine (1988)

Relative to the Middle East conflict and the disputes between the Israelis and the Arab Palestinians, this particular source need much work in order to be of any use to the layman.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Invalid question.

Which Mandate owned the land?

Link?

(COMMENT)

Mandates are a set of instructions and legal instruments.

Land ownership has nothing to do with the issues; sovereignty, borders, governance. Land ownership is a real-estate issue (civil law).

The questions are:

• Who did the Ottoman Empire surrender to?
• When did Turkey renounces formally all rights of suzerainty or jurisdiction of any kind over Moslems who are subject to the sovereignty or protectorate of any other State?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

toastman, Phoenall, et al,

This is back to the disputes on "border issue" and the arguments on the scope and nature of "recognition." There are people like "P F Tinmore" who desperately attempt to hold onto the notion that:

• the territory to which the former Mandate of Palestine applied (less that territory recognized by the HM the King of England as sovereign unto the Emir of Trans-Jordan) was under (some heretofore unknown) Arab Sovereignty;
• the territory to which was once described as formerly belonged to the Ottoman Empire, and surrendered to the Allied Powers, was under Arab Sovereignty;
• the territory to which was once described as formerly belonged to the Ottoman Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by Allied Powers, was under Arab Sovereignty;
• the territory Short-Titled and named "Palestine" by the Allied Powers was somehow granted sovereignty to an unknown Arab Leader:
  • and govern by an unknown Arab body,
  • which exercised some unknown Arab law,
  • over a people granted citizenship and a nationality by the law of the Allied Powers.

Most Respectfully,
R

Who are you trying to fool. I never said any of that.

I don't see any border disputes. I see a lot of say so and lies.

With regard to the northern border of Palestine, Britain and France (the occupying powers at the time, and later the mandatory powers over Syria and Lebanon respectively) signed an agreement which settled key aspects relating to the Palestinian-Syrian-Lebanese border (Paris, 23 December 1920).20 The British High Commissioner of Palestine and the French High Commissioner of Syria and Lebanon reached, at Jerusalem on 16 December 1923, a complementary agreement on border issues.21 On 2 February 1926, the agreement was replaced by the Bon Voisinage Agreement to Regulate Certain Administrative Matters in Connection with the Frontier between Palestine and Syria [including Lebanon].22

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel​

What was the status of these borders in 1949? (After the Mandate left Palestine.)

2. The basic purpose of the Armistice Demarcation Line is to delineate the line beyond which the armed forces of the respective Parties shall not move.

1. The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the international boundary between the Lebanon and Palestine.

Where the existing truce lines run along the international boundary between Syria and Palestine, the Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the boundary line

The Avalon Project Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement March 23 1949
The Avalon Project Israeli-Syrian General Armistice Agreement July 20 1949​

Note that the armistice lines did not divide Israel from the other countries. They were merely lines that the armed forces could not cross. They did not define territory. The international boundaries defined territories.

The southwestern border of Palestine with Egypt dates back to the late 19th century. Originally, this border was drawn up on a de facto basis, as the Ottoman Empire recognized Egypt’s autonomy.27 Formally, however, two border agreements between the Ottoman Empire and Egypt were reached in 1906. The first came in the form of an Exchange of Notes between Britain [which was controlling Egypt since 1882] and Turkey relative to the Maintenance of the Status Quo in the Sinai Peninsula, signed in Constantinople on 14 May.28 The second and more detailed border agreement, was the Agreement between Egypt and Turkey for the fixing of an Administrative Line between the Vilayet [province] of Hejaz and the Governorate [district] of Jerusalem and the Sinai Peninsula, signed in Rafah, on 1 October.29 The separation of Egypt from Turkey (Palestine, in this instance), as of 5 November 1914, was ultimately recognized by the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne.

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel​

What was the status of this border in 1949? (After the Mandate left Palestine.)

1. The principle that no military or political advantage should be gained under the truce ordered by the Security Council is recognized.

2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary,...

2. The area thus demilitarized shall be as follows: From a point on the Egypt-Palestine frontier five (5) kilometres north-west of the intersection of the Rafah-El Auja road and the frontier (MR 08750468), south-east to Khashm El Mamdud (MR 09650414), thence south-east to Hill 405 (MR 10780285), thence south-west to a point on the Egypt-Palestine frontier five (5) kilometres southeast of the intersection of the old railway tracks and the frontier (MR 09950145), thence returning north-west along the Egypt-Palestine frontier to the point of origin.

4. The road Taba-Qouseima-Auja shall not be employed by any military forces whatsoever for the purpose of entering Palestine.

The Avalon Project Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement February 24 1949​

Note that the Palestine side of the Egypt-Palestine frontier was still called Palestine in 1949.

The eastern border of Palestine with Trans-Jordan was of particular significance.8 The Palestine Mandate originally incorporated the territory of Trans-Jordan within the scope of ‘Palestine.’ Article 25 of the Mandate accorded Britain the power, “with consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as… may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions.” Subsequently, on 16 September 1922, the Council of the League of Nations passed a resolution by which it approved a proposal submitted by Britain to exclude Trans-Jordan from the scope of Palestine’s territory.9 Ultimately, the border between Palestine and Trans-Jordan was fixed as suggested by Britain.10

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel​

Due to the occupation of the West Bank and other previously arranged demilitarized zones, the armistice line did not follow the border between Jordan and Palestine. However there was an interesting statement.

(d) In the sector from a point on the Dead Sea (MR 1925-0958) to the southernmost tip of Palestine, the Armistice Demarcation Line shall be determined by existing military positions...

The Avalon Project Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement April 3 1949​

The southernmost tip of Palestine was still called Palestine in 1949.

This confirms the creation of Palestine's international borders and that they remained unchanged in 1949. This is the start point of any discussions on land and borders not some political say so decades in the future..

Once again you confuse Mandate of Palestine borders with the borders of the non existent nation of Palestine. Those same borders were the proposed borders of the Jewish National Home and entered into International law as such. This answers many of your questions including what are the borders of Israel under International law, what treaty set them up and what land does Israel have.

Try reading the notes attached to all the links you produce and see where you are getting things wrong.

I'm not going down a rabbit hole looking for something that isn't there. If you can't tell me what I am looking for I won't be able to find it.

I have told you where to look and still you refuse to do it. Like all the times you ask for the same links to be posted. As I said you confuse the Mandate for Palestine with the British Mandate. The LoN clearly stated that the borders were those of the Mandate for Palestine, not the nation of Palestine. To make things easier for everyone the Mandate for Palestine was abbreviated to Palestine without conferring statehood to the Mandate for Palestine. Those self same borders exist today and are now the International borders of Egypt/ Israel and Jordan/ Israel and the armistice lines between Syria/Israel and Lebanon/Israel. There are no international borders of the nation of Palestine until they fulfil the terms of the UN charter they signed last year.

Which Mandate owned the land?

Link?

League of Nations owned the land and they administered it under the various Mandates. Don't you read the replies you are given to the same questions asked daily. The arab muslims owned nothing until it was granted to them under the Mandate for that area, and there were 3 Mandatory powers in play after WW1 Britain, France and Russia.

Nice duck away from the facts that the Palestinians are refusing to fulfil their obligations of peace talks and negotiations on mutual borders. Time the UN gave them a time limit to meet their promises or face the ICC/ICJ for their judgement.

 

[Hossfly]

Who are you trying to fool. I never said any of that.

I don't see any border disputes. I see a lot of say so and lies.

With regard to the northern border of Palestine, Britain and France (the occupying powers at the time, and later the mandatory powers over Syria and Lebanon respectively) signed an agreement which settled key aspects relating to the Palestinian-Syrian-Lebanese border (Paris, 23 December 1920).20 The British High Commissioner of Palestine and the French High Commissioner of Syria and Lebanon reached, at Jerusalem on 16 December 1923, a complementary agreement on border issues.21 On 2 February 1926, the agreement was replaced by the Bon Voisinage Agreement to Regulate Certain Administrative Matters in Connection with the Frontier between Palestine and Syria [including Lebanon].22

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel​

What was the status of these borders in 1949? (After the Mandate left Palestine.)

2. The basic purpose of the Armistice Demarcation Line is to delineate the line beyond which the armed forces of the respective Parties shall not move.

1. The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the international boundary between the Lebanon and Palestine.

Where the existing truce lines run along the international boundary between Syria and Palestine, the Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the boundary line

The Avalon Project Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement March 23 1949
The Avalon Project Israeli-Syrian General Armistice Agreement July 20 1949​

Note that the armistice lines did not divide Israel from the other countries. They were merely lines that the armed forces could not cross. They did not define territory. The international boundaries defined territories.

The southwestern border of Palestine with Egypt dates back to the late 19th century. Originally, this border was drawn up on a de facto basis, as the Ottoman Empire recognized Egypt’s autonomy.27 Formally, however, two border agreements between the Ottoman Empire and Egypt were reached in 1906. The first came in the form of an Exchange of Notes between Britain [which was controlling Egypt since 1882] and Turkey relative to the Maintenance of the Status Quo in the Sinai Peninsula, signed in Constantinople on 14 May.28 The second and more detailed border agreement, was the Agreement between Egypt and Turkey for the fixing of an Administrative Line between the Vilayet [province] of Hejaz and the Governorate [district] of Jerusalem and the Sinai Peninsula, signed in Rafah, on 1 October.29 The separation of Egypt from Turkey (Palestine, in this instance), as of 5 November 1914, was ultimately recognized by the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne.

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel​

What was the status of this border in 1949? (After the Mandate left Palestine.)

1. The principle that no military or political advantage should be gained under the truce ordered by the Security Council is recognized.

2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary,...

2. The area thus demilitarized shall be as follows: From a point on the Egypt-Palestine frontier five (5) kilometres north-west of the intersection of the Rafah-El Auja road and the frontier (MR 08750468), south-east to Khashm El Mamdud (MR 09650414), thence south-east to Hill 405 (MR 10780285), thence south-west to a point on the Egypt-Palestine frontier five (5) kilometres southeast of the intersection of the old railway tracks and the frontier (MR 09950145), thence returning north-west along the Egypt-Palestine frontier to the point of origin.

4. The road Taba-Qouseima-Auja shall not be employed by any military forces whatsoever for the purpose of entering Palestine.

The Avalon Project Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement February 24 1949​

Note that the Palestine side of the Egypt-Palestine frontier was still called Palestine in 1949.

The eastern border of Palestine with Trans-Jordan was of particular significance.8 The Palestine Mandate originally incorporated the territory of Trans-Jordan within the scope of ‘Palestine.’ Article 25 of the Mandate accorded Britain the power, “with consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as… may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions.” Subsequently, on 16 September 1922, the Council of the League of Nations passed a resolution by which it approved a proposal submitted by Britain to exclude Trans-Jordan from the scope of Palestine’s territory.9 Ultimately, the border between Palestine and Trans-Jordan was fixed as suggested by Britain.10

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel​

Due to the occupation of the West Bank and other previously arranged demilitarized zones, the armistice line did not follow the border between Jordan and Palestine. However there was an interesting statement.

(d) In the sector from a point on the Dead Sea (MR 1925-0958) to the southernmost tip of Palestine, the Armistice Demarcation Line shall be determined by existing military positions...

The Avalon Project Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement April 3 1949​

The southernmost tip of Palestine was still called Palestine in 1949.

This confirms the creation of Palestine's international borders and that they remained unchanged in 1949. This is the start point of any discussions on land and borders not some political say so decades in the future..

Once again you confuse Mandate of Palestine borders with the borders of the non existent nation of Palestine. Those same borders were the proposed borders of the Jewish National Home and entered into International law as such. This answers many of your questions including what are the borders of Israel under International law, what treaty set them up and what land does Israel have.

Try reading the notes attached to all the links you produce and see where you are getting things wrong.

I'm not going down a rabbit hole looking for something that isn't there. If you can't tell me what I am looking for I won't be able to find it.

I have told you where to look and still you refuse to do it. Like all the times you ask for the same links to be posted. As I said you confuse the Mandate for Palestine with the British Mandate. The LoN clearly stated that the borders were those of the Mandate for Palestine, not the nation of Palestine. To make things easier for everyone the Mandate for Palestine was abbreviated to Palestine without conferring statehood to the Mandate for Palestine. Those self same borders exist today and are now the International borders of Egypt/ Israel and Jordan/ Israel and the armistice lines between Syria/Israel and Lebanon/Israel. There are no international borders of the nation of Palestine until they fulfil the terms of the UN charter they signed last year.

Which Mandate owned the land?

Link?

League of Nations owned the land and they administered it under the various Mandates. Don't you read the replies you are given to the same questions asked daily. The arab muslims owned nothing until it was granted to them under the Mandate for that area, and there were 3 Mandatory powers in play after WW1 Britain, France and Russia.

Nice duck away from the facts that the Palestinians are refusing to fulfil their obligations of peace talks and negotiations on mutual borders. Time the UN gave them a time limit to meet their promises or face the ICC/ICJ for their judgement.

Tinmore's reasoning seems to be if you don't acknowledge a fact, then you're reasoning still holds sway.

 

[MJB12741]

Once again you confuse Mandate of Palestine borders with the borders of the non existent nation of Palestine. Those same borders were the proposed borders of the Jewish National Home and entered into International law as such. This answers many of your questions including what are the borders of Israel under International law, what treaty set them up and what land does Israel have.

Try reading the notes attached to all the links you produce and see where you are getting things wrong.

I'm not going down a rabbit hole looking for something that isn't there. If you can't tell me what I am looking for I won't be able to find it.

I have told you where to look and still you refuse to do it. Like all the times you ask for the same links to be posted. As I said you confuse the Mandate for Palestine with the British Mandate. The LoN clearly stated that the borders were those of the Mandate for Palestine, not the nation of Palestine. To make things easier for everyone the Mandate for Palestine was abbreviated to Palestine without conferring statehood to the Mandate for Palestine. Those self same borders exist today and are now the International borders of Egypt/ Israel and Jordan/ Israel and the armistice lines between Syria/Israel and Lebanon/Israel. There are no international borders of the nation of Palestine until they fulfil the terms of the UN charter they signed last year.

Which Mandate owned the land?

Link?

League of Nations owned the land and they administered it under the various Mandates. Don't you read the replies you are given to the same questions asked daily. The arab muslims owned nothing until it was granted to them under the Mandate for that area, and there were 3 Mandatory powers in play after WW1 Britain, France and Russia.

Nice duck away from the facts that the Palestinians are refusing to fulfil their obligations of peace talks and negotiations on mutual borders. Time the UN gave them a time limit to meet their promises or face the ICC/ICJ for their judgement.

Tinmore's reasoning seems to be if you don't acknowledge a fact, then you're reasoning still holds sway.

No question that RoccoR in particular addresses all of Tinmore's comments with documented facts & still Tinmore insists he's right. It's called Palestinian mentality.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Invalid question.

Which Mandate owned the land?

Link?

(COMMENT)

Mandates are a set of instructions and legal instruments.

Land ownership has nothing to do with the issues; sovereignty, borders, governance. Land ownership is a real-estate issue (civil law).

The questions are:

• Who did the Ottoman Empire surrender to?
• When did Turkey renounces formally all rights of suzerainty or jurisdiction of any kind over Moslems who are subject to the sovereignty or protectorate of any other State?

Most Respectfully,
R

Invalid question.​

I knew that. I was just jerking his chain for making an invalid post. And his response is out in La La Land.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Invalid question.

Which Mandate owned the land?

Link?

(COMMENT)

Mandates are a set of instructions and legal instruments.

Land ownership has nothing to do with the issues; sovereignty, borders, governance. Land ownership is a real-estate issue (civil law).

The questions are:

• Who did the Ottoman Empire surrender to?
• When did Turkey renounces formally all rights of suzerainty or jurisdiction of any kind over Moslems who are subject to the sovereignty or protectorate of any other State?

Most Respectfully,
R

Land ownership has nothing to do with the issues; sovereignty, borders, governance. Land ownership is a real-estate issue (civil law).​

I think you are trying to confuse people with that real-estate thing.

It has been said a gazillion times that Palestine had no land or borders.

"The LoN clearly stated that the borders were those of the Mandate for Palestine, not the nation of Palestine. ~ Phoenall​

Doesn't a border denote the "ownership" of land? Mandates are trustees and trustees do not own the assets in their trust.

ARTICLE 1

The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population; b ) a defined territory; c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states. The Avalon Project Convention on Rights and Duties of States inter-American December 26 1933​

Does possess mean something different from owned? Isn't defined territory a piece of land with a border around it?

And there is much confusion about acquiring land. It is said that Israel need not acquire land to declare statehood.

Emphasizing​

the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war... S RES 242 1967 of 22 November 1967​

Acquiring territory is a valid concept. If a state should have a defined territory then it had to have been acquired somehow.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

It does not change the fact that Palestine, in 1949, was a term that was still being politically used by the Arabs, and attempting to assign some quality of a state or political subdivision; which it did not have.

This confirms the creation of Palestine's international borders and that they remained unchanged in 1949. This is the start point of any discussions on land and borders not some political say so decades in the future..

(MINOR CORRECTIONs)

----------------------------------------------------------- FIRST -----------------------------------------------------------​

You noted several times --- using this phrase: "(After the Mandate left Palestine.)"

The "Mandate," a legal instrument of the League of Nations (LoN) --- never went anywhere; it did not leave. The UK, in coordination with the LoN, departed the territory and terminated its role as the Mandatory. The Mandate for Palestine is still valid under:
Article 80 The UN Charter

1. Except as may be agreed upon in individual trusteeship agreements, made under Articles 77, 79, and 81, placing each territory under the trusteeship system, and until such agreements have been concluded, nothing in this Chapter shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties.
2. Paragraph 1 of this Article shall not be interpreted as giving grounds for delay or postponement of the negotiation and conclusion of agreements for placing mandated and other territories under the trusteeship system as provided for in Article 77.

You have used this same argument in you previous thrusts --- Post #582.

----------------------------------------------------------- SECOND -----------------------------------------------------------​

The ‘Centre de Recherche Français à Jérusalem’ (CRFJ), is not an official source or a basis for an official interpretation. The work itself is reputable and worthy, but still an opinion; from Dr. Mutaz M. Qafisheh, Dean, College of Law at Hebron University, oPt. I have read many of his works. This work, which our friend "P F Tinmore" often cites from is a very scholarly effect. But let's be clear, Dr Qafisheh wrote this work for his own kind (fellow students of law) and is Arab Palestinian; framing his argument like any baraster, in a way that best projects his particular point of view. But, --- Dr Qafisheh makes clear --- right in the beginning (Para 2 - Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel) ---

Under the Turkish rule, according to the Ottoman Nationality Law of 19 January 1869, Palestine’s inhabitants were Ottoman citizens. At that time, legally speaking, there was nothing called Palestine, Palestinian nationality, or Palestinians, neither was there anything called Israel, Israeli nationality, or Israelis.​

(COMMENT)

Having given recognition to the Author and the Source, I must point out that the entire piece is political in nature and written to pacify the pro-Palestinian clients that support the Jihadist and Fedayeen view that "Palestine" --- the word, the location and the people of --- simply by using the word --- gives some credence that their is such a thing. As if using the word ghost or vampire makes the thing real. And it does not take long at all for Dr Qafisheh's little thesis to go astray.

Upon its detachment from the Ottomans, the territory of Palestine became distinct from its neighboring countries. In fact, this separation began between Palestine and the newly created Arab ‘states’: Trans-Jordan (as it was called), Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon. Soon thereafter, Palestine’s frontiers acquired permanent recognition through bilateral agreements with its neighbors. Following the international legal framework that had been established by the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne ending the Ottoman nominal/official sovereignty over the Arab Middle East, each of the four countries instituted a separate nationality for its population through domestic legislation. Nationalities in these countries have since then become well established.​

First: "Palestine became distinct from its neighboring countries."
Very misleading!
Correction: Palestine, as a Mandate, became distinct from its neighboring Mandates territories.

Second: "In fact, this separation began between Palestine and the newly created Arab ‘states’: Trans-Jordan (as it was called), Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon."
Very misleading!
Correction: In fact, this separation began between British Mandate for Palestine (which included Trans-Jordan) and the newly created French Mandates: Syria, and Lebanon. Britain seized control of Egypt politically in 1882, gradually eroding Egyptian allegiance from the Ottoman Empire until 1914 when Britain seized total control. Partially independent from the UK in 1922, and total independence in June 1953.

Third: "Soon thereafter, Palestine’s frontiers acquired permanent recognition through bilateral agreements with its neighbors."
Again --- Very Misleading!
Correction: The Territory to which the Mandate for Palestine applied acquired demarcation through the Sykes-Picot Treaty and several other negotiated efforts between the Mandatory Powers.
The difference here is that the "Government of Palestine" was the Administration established by the Mandatory Power. Regionally, there were only two, the French and the British.

Fourth: "Following the international legal framework that had been established by the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne ending the Ottoman nominal/official sovereignty over the Arab Middle East, each of the four countries instituted a separate nationality for its population through domestic legislation."
This is entirely Wrong!!!
---
Correction: "First, the Ottoman Empire and its control over the region ended in 1918 at the signing of the Armistice of Mudros."
NOTE: Palestine: Information with Provenance (PIWP database) Event #1831 Armistice of Mudros -- Ottoman unconditional surrender
Armistice of Mudros, (Oct. 30, 1918), pact signed at the port of Mudros, on the Aegean island of Lemnos, between the Ottoman Empire and Great Britain (representing the Allied powers) marking the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I (1914–18).
Under the terms of the armistice, the Ottomans surrendered their remaining garrisons of Hejaz, Yemen, Syria, Mesopotamia, Tripolitania, and Cyrenaica; the Allies were to occupy the Straits of the Dardanelles and the Bosporus, Batum (now in southwest Georgia), and the Taurus tunnel system; and the Allies won the right to occupy “in case of disorder” the six Armenian provinces in Anatolia and to seize “any strategic points” in case of a threat to Allied security. The Ottoman army was demobilized, and Turkish ports, railways, and other strategic points were made available for use by the Allies.
---
Correction: "Following the international legal framework that had been established by the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne ending the Ottoman nominal/official sovereignty over the Arab Middle East, each of the four countries instituted a separate nationality for its population through domestic legislation. Nationalities in these countries have since then become well established."
This is entirely Wrong!!!
The each of the four countries (Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan) were individual Mandates.

• Lebanon became independent in 1943.
• Syria became independent in 1946.
• Palestine was divided:
  • Jordan (1946)
  • Israel (1948)
  • Palestine (1988)

Relative to the Middle East conflict and the disputes between the Israelis and the Arab Palestinians, this particular source need much work in order to be of any use to the layman.

Most Respectfully,
R

When, exactly, did Palestine become a trusteeship of the UN?

On March 18, the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine reported that it had been unable to arrange a truce and recommended a temporary trusteeship for Palestine in order to restore peace.

The following day, United States Ambassador to the United Nations Warren Austin announced that the United States believes that the partition of Palestine was no longer a viable option. On March 20, United States Secretary of State George Marshall confirmed the United States' view that the proposal for a temporary United Nations trusteeship for Palestine is the only idea presently being considered that will allow the United Nations to address the difficult situation in Palestine.

The trusteeship proposal was supported by Loy W. Henderson, head of the Near Eastern Affairs Bureau, who opposed US support for partition because he believed it would hurt US interests in Arab countries. The proposal was drafted by Clark Clifford, White House Counsel and Max Lowenstein.

"The United States has proposed to the Security Council a temporary United Nations trusteeship for Palestine to provide a government to keep the peace. Such trusteeship was proposed only after we had exhausted every effort to find a way to carry out partition by peaceful means. Trusteeship is not proposed as a substitute for the partition plan but as an effort to fill the vacuum soon to be created by the termination of the mandate on May 15. The trusteeship does not prejudice the character of the final political settlement. It would establish the conditions of order which are essential to a peaceful solution."

American trusteeship proposal for Palestine - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia​

It looks like another proposal that didn't happen.

 

[montelatici]

Rocco et al.

Neither the Class A (of which Palestine was one) nor the Class B Mandates involved cessation of territory or transfer of sovereignty to the Mandatories. The Mandatories were to exercise an international function of administration on behalf of the League of Nations, with the object of promoting the well-being and development of the inhabitants.

Sovereignty accrued to the inhabitants, albeit administered by the Mandatory.

This was confirmed by the International Court of Justice when South Africa attempted to claim sovereignty and ownership of the territory of South West Africa.

"The terms of this Mandate, as well as the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant and the principles embodied therein, show that the creation of this new international institution [the Mandate] did not involve any cession of territory or transfer of sovereignty to the Union of South Africa. The Union Government was to exercise an international function of administration on behalf of the League, with the object of promoting the well-being and development of the inhabitants".


http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/10/1891.pdf

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Let's see if I can pick these off --- one at a time.

Land ownership has nothing to do with the issues; sovereignty, borders, governance. Land ownership is a real-estate issue (civil law).​

I think you are trying to confuse people with that real-estate thing.

(COMMENT)

No, I don't think so. Land ownership is not a criteria in either the Declarative Theory of Sovereignty or the Constitutive Theory of Soveriegnty. Neither requires "ownership" as a means of establishing "territorial domain."

It has been said a gazillion times that Palestine had no land or borders.

"The LoN clearly stated that the borders were those of the Mandate for Palestine, not the nation of Palestine. ~ Phoenall​

Doesn't a border denote the "ownership" of land? Mandates are trustees and trustees do not own the assets in their trust.

(COMMENT)

National borders DO NOT denote ownership. National borders denote the terminator of sovereignty, from one dominion to another.

ARTICLE 1

The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population; b ) a defined territory; c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states. The Avalon Project Convention on Rights and Duties of States inter-American December 26 1933​

Does possess mean something different from owned? Isn't defined territory a piece of land with a border around it?

(COMMENT)

First:
Posses DOES MEAN something different from ownership. You can possess a "rental car" and yet not own the car. You may lease property yet not own the property. You may by under mandate to maintain a given entity, yet not own the entity. Yes, possession and ownership are two different things.

Second:
The idea of a defined territory - is unambiguous. It is an area of land under the jurisdiction of a ruler or state.

And there is much confusion about acquiring land. It is said that Israel need not acquire land to declare statehood.

Emphasizing
the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war... S RES 242 1967 of 22 November 1967​

Acquiring territory is a valid concept. If a state should have a defined territory then it had to have been acquired somehow.

(COMMENT)

In the case of S/RES/242, the emphasis of the Resolution is not specifically directed at a nation:

• Was the Clause meant to be directed at Israel?
• Was the Clause meant to be directed at Jordan?
• Was the Clause meant to be directed at Palestinians?

This resolution at first sounds very dramatic, yet in reality is very ambiguous. The "inadmissibility" clause is one of those issues. It does not mention that Jordan had taken the West Bank by force. So, by reading the Resolution, you do not know if the prohibition warning was directed at Jordan or Israel.

There are several other issues being ambiguous.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

I don't believe I mentioned cessation of territory.

Rocco et al.

Neither the Class A (of which Palestine was one) nor the Class B Mandates involved cessation of territory or transfer of sovereignty to the Mandatories. The Mandatories were to exercise an international function of administration on behalf of the League of Nations, with the object of promoting the well-being and development of the inhabitants.

Sovereignty accrued to the inhabitants, albeit administered by the Mandatory.

This was confirmed by the International Court of Justice when South Africa attempted to claim sovereignty and ownership of the territory of South West Africa.

"The terms of this Mandate, as well as the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant and the principles embodied therein, show that the creation of this new international institution [the Mandate] did not involve any cession of territory or transfer of sovereignty to the Union of South Africa. The Union Government was to exercise an international function of administration on behalf of the League, with the object of promoting the well-being and development of the inhabitants".


http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/10/1891.pdf

(COMMENT)

To some degree, I agree with you here.

What are you specifically challenging?

v/r
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well in some regards you are correct.

When, exactly, did Palestine become a trusteeship of the UN?

(COMMENT)

Both the UNPC and the UNSCOP noticed that the Arabs had been attempting to subvert the entire plan for Independence.

Article 77​

1. 1. The trusteeship system shall apply to such territories in the following categories as may be placed thereunder by means of trusteeship agreements:
      a. territories now held under mandate;
      b. territories which may be detached from enemy states as a result of the Second World War; and
      c. territories voluntarily placed under the system by states responsible for their administration.
   2. It will be a matter for subsequent agreement as to which territories in the foregoing categories will be brought under the trusteeship system and upon what terms.

There were a number of reasons for the immediate action of the adjacent Arab States. One of them was to prevent the trusteeship that would inevitably take hold over the remainder of the territory. However, the initiation of WAR on the part of the Arab nations prevented the action. Theoretically, the trusteeship could have taken hold anytime after the UN Charter can into force under Article 77(1a). But as the Successor Government reported:

"C. Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein."​

While these Hostile Arabs were very successful in preventing a trusteeship of the allotted territory for the proposed Arab State (which in some ways worked against the Arab), and the armed seizure of the West Bank and Gaza Strip --- they were unsuccessful in preventing the Independence of the proposed Jewish State.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Let's see if I can pick these off --- one at a time.

Land ownership has nothing to do with the issues; sovereignty, borders, governance. Land ownership is a real-estate issue (civil law).​

I think you are trying to confuse people with that real-estate thing.

(COMMENT)

No, I don't think so. Land ownership is not a criteria in either the Declarative Theory of Sovereignty or the Constitutive Theory of Soveriegnty. Neither requires "ownership" as a means of establishing "territorial domain."

It has been said a gazillion times that Palestine had no land or borders.

"The LoN clearly stated that the borders were those of the Mandate for Palestine, not the nation of Palestine. ~ Phoenall​

Doesn't a border denote the "ownership" of land? Mandates are trustees and trustees do not own the assets in their trust.

(COMMENT)

National borders DO NOT denote ownership. National borders denote the terminator of sovereignty, from one dominion to another.

ARTICLE 1

The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population; b ) a defined territory; c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states. The Avalon Project Convention on Rights and Duties of States inter-American December 26 1933​

Does possess mean something different from owned? Isn't defined territory a piece of land with a border around it?

(COMMENT)

First:
Posses DOES MEAN something different from ownership. You can possess a "rental car" and yet not own the car. You may lease property yet not own the property. You may by under mandate to maintain a given entity, yet not own the entity. Yes, possession and ownership are two different things.

Second:
The idea of a defined territory - is unambiguous. It is an area of land under the jurisdiction of a ruler or state.

And there is much confusion about acquiring land. It is said that Israel need not acquire land to declare statehood.

Emphasizing
the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war... S RES 242 1967 of 22 November 1967​

Acquiring territory is a valid concept. If a state should have a defined territory then it had to have been acquired somehow.

(COMMENT)

In the case of S/RES/242, the emphasis of the Resolution is not specifically directed at a nation:

• Was the Clause meant to be directed at Israel?
• Was the Clause meant to be directed at Jordan?
• Was the Clause meant to be directed at Palestinians?

This resolution at first sounds very dramatic, yet in reality is very ambiguous. The "inadmissibility" clause is one of those issues. It does not mention that Jordan had taken the West Bank by force. So, by reading the Resolution, you do not know if the prohibition warning was directed at Jordan or Israel.

There are several other issues being ambiguous.

Most Respectfully,
R

Posses DOES MEAN something different from ownership. You can possess a "rental car" and yet not own the car.​

You may have a point but how many countries are on rented land? I think your analogy falls short of reality.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well in some regards you are correct.

When, exactly, did Palestine become a trusteeship of the UN?

(COMMENT)

Both the UNPC and the UNSCOP noticed that the Arabs had been attempting to subvert the entire plan for Independence.

Article 77​

1. 1. The trusteeship system shall apply to such territories in the following categories as may be placed thereunder by means of trusteeship agreements:
      a. territories now held under mandate;
      b. territories which may be detached from enemy states as a result of the Second World War; and
      c. territories voluntarily placed under the system by states responsible for their administration.
   2. It will be a matter for subsequent agreement as to which territories in the foregoing categories will be brought under the trusteeship system and upon what terms.

There were a number of reasons for the immediate action of the adjacent Arab States. One of them was to prevent the trusteeship that would inevitably take hold over the remainder of the territory. However, the initiation of WAR on the part of the Arab nations prevented the action. Theoretically, the trusteeship could have taken hold anytime after the UN Charter can into force under Article 77(1a). But as the Successor Government reported:

"C. Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein."​

While these Hostile Arabs were very successful in preventing a trusteeship of the allotted territory for the proposed Arab State (which in some ways worked against the Arab), and the armed seizure of the West Bank and Gaza Strip --- they were unsuccessful in preventing the Independence of the proposed Jewish State.

Most Respectfully,
R

There were a number of reasons for the immediate action of the adjacent Arab States. One of them was to prevent the trusteeship that would inevitably take hold over the remainder of the territory.​

What do you mean "remainder of the territory?" The proposal was in March of 1948.

 

[P F Tinmore]

montelatici, et al,

I don't believe I mentioned cessation of territory.

Rocco et al.

Neither the Class A (of which Palestine was one) nor the Class B Mandates involved cessation of territory or transfer of sovereignty to the Mandatories. The Mandatories were to exercise an international function of administration on behalf of the League of Nations, with the object of promoting the well-being and development of the inhabitants.

Sovereignty accrued to the inhabitants, albeit administered by the Mandatory.

This was confirmed by the International Court of Justice when South Africa attempted to claim sovereignty and ownership of the territory of South West Africa.

"The terms of this Mandate, as well as the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant and the principles embodied therein, show that the creation of this new international institution [the Mandate] did not involve any cession of territory or transfer of sovereignty to the Union of South Africa. The Union Government was to exercise an international function of administration on behalf of the League, with the object of promoting the well-being and development of the inhabitants".


http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/10/1891.pdf

(COMMENT)

To some degree, I agree with you here.

What are you specifically challenging?

v/r
R

This appears to be a key point.

Sovereignty accrued to the inhabitants, albeit administered by the Mandatory.​

That is the way I always understood it. UN resolutions confirm the Palestinian's right to sovereignty in Palestine.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore,

In this case Your interpretation falls short.

The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population; b ) a defined territory; c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states. The Avalon Project Convention on Rights and Duties of States inter-American December 26 1933​

Posses DOES MEAN something different from ownership. You can possess a "rental car" and yet not own the car.​

You may have a point but how many countries are on rented land? I think your analogy falls short of reality.

(COMMENT)

"Should possess" (ambiguous all by itself) is pointing to a "qualification."

The "qualification" is a "defined territory."

You hold or possess a qualification, and not a plot of land.

Sovereign powers own very little of the land. Usually land is owned privately. Land does not have to be owned by the US Government in order for it to be US Sovereign Territory. My house and land is owned by me and not the US Government. But it is still sovereign US territory.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[toastman]

montelatici, et al,

I don't believe I mentioned cessation of territory.

Rocco et al.

Neither the Class A (of which Palestine was one) nor the Class B Mandates involved cessation of territory or transfer of sovereignty to the Mandatories. The Mandatories were to exercise an international function of administration on behalf of the League of Nations, with the object of promoting the well-being and development of the inhabitants.

Sovereignty accrued to the inhabitants, albeit administered by the Mandatory.

This was confirmed by the International Court of Justice when South Africa attempted to claim sovereignty and ownership of the territory of South West Africa.

"The terms of this Mandate, as well as the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant and the principles embodied therein, show that the creation of this new international institution [the Mandate] did not involve any cession of territory or transfer of sovereignty to the Union of South Africa. The Union Government was to exercise an international function of administration on behalf of the League, with the object of promoting the well-being and development of the inhabitants".


http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/10/1891.pdf

(COMMENT)

To some degree, I agree with you here.

What are you specifically challenging?

v/r
R

This appears to be a key point.

Sovereignty accrued to the inhabitants, albeit administered by the Mandatory.​

That is the way I always understood it. UN resolutions confirm the Palestinian's right to sovereignty in Palestine.

Rightm and Palestine is the West Bank and Gaza.