Who's occupying who ?

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, you need to think (THINK) about this in order.

OK, but where does it say that citizenship would expire or be revoked at the termination of the Mandate?

It is my understanding that Israel's nationality law of 1952 denationalized the Palestinians in contravention of international law.

(COMMENT)

The Citizenship Order and associated guidance in the Palestine Order in Council, pertained to a Citizenship to the citizens of the territory to which the Mandate Applied. As territory changed status, becoming independent (Like Jordan), the citizens assumed that new Citizenship.

In 1948, what Arabs were in Israel became Israelis. In April 1950, with the consent of the Palestinians, Jordan's parliament, including 50% Palestinians, voted to accept Jordanian Annexation. In the assumption of Annexation, the Palestinians, with regard to the status otherwise, became Jordanian Citizens (no longer no longer Citizens of the former Mandate Territory). Similarly, when the All Palestine Government assumed political authority in Gaza, the Palestinians became citizens of the APG; limited to Gaza.
In 1959, the Egyptian Government dissolved the APG. Remember, the Israelis did not pass their Citizenship Law until July 1952.

In July 1988, Jordan cut all ties with the West Bank. Until November 1988, the citizenship of the West Bank Arab Palestinians was as ambiguous as the Gaza Strip Palestinians . But the territory was under the effective control of the Israelis. The Palestinian declared Independence in November 1988 and the citizenship issue was resolved by the sole representative of the Palestinian People.

Under the 2003 Basic Law (Article 7) made the requirement that Palestinian Citizenship would be "regulated by law." While it implies State of Palestine citizenship, in the intervening time, more than a decade, the Palestinians were never able to put it together. This indicates the actual and practical -- relative importance of the issue.

With the possible exception of the Gaza Strip Citizens, who are always ambiguous; it doesn't appear that the APG left citizenship instruction in the decade it was functioning. After 1959, the Gaza Strip was a Egyptian Military Governorship.

Memory Jogger: Just when you thought that things could not get any more confusing:

Jordan to Revoke Citizenship of PA, PLO Officials
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The Jerusalem Post: By Khaled Abu Toameh [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]04/11/2012 [/FONT](Its very short by good.)
In a surprise move, Jordan has decided to revoke the Jordanian citizenship of Palestinian Authority and PLO officials, sources in Amman disclosed Wednesday.
​

Then there is the issue that, --- the State of Israeli was created outside the reach of the Lausanne Treaty (they were not a party to the treaty). It would be quite difficult to litigate this mess. Just trying to find unbiased Judges and litigators is quite the undertaking. However, the creations of a treaty would be a more likely resolution. However, the since 1948, the Palestinians have had a clear policy that the Arabs of Palestine consider that any attempt by the Jews or any power group of powers to establish a Jewish state in Arab territory is an act of aggression.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[aris2chat]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, you need to think (THINK) about this in order.

OK, but where does it say that citizenship would expire or be revoked at the termination of the Mandate?

It is my understanding that Israel's nationality law of 1952 denationalized the Palestinians in contravention of international law.

(COMMENT)

The Citizenship Order and associated guidance in the Palestine Order in Council, pertained to a Citizenship to the citizens of the territory to which the Mandate Applied. As territory changed status, becoming independent (Like Jordan), the citizens assumed that new Citizenship.

In 1948, what Arabs were in Israel became Israelis. In April 1950, with the consent of the Palestinians, Jordan's parliament, including 50% Palestinians, voted to accept Jordanian Annexation. In the assumption of Annexation, the Palestinians, with regard to the status otherwise, became Jordanian Citizens (no longer no longer Citizens of the former Mandate Territory). Similarly, when the All Palestine Government assumed political authority in Gaza, the Palestinians became citizens of the APG; limited to Gaza.
In 1959, the Egyptian Government dissolved the APG. Remember, the Israelis did not pass their Citizenship Law until July 1952.

In July 1988, Jordan cut all ties with the West Bank. Until November 1988, the citizenship of the West Bank Arab Palestinians was as ambiguous as the Gaza Strip Palestinians . But the territory was under the effective control of the Israelis. The Palestinian declared Independence in November 1988 and the citizenship issue was resolved by the sole representative of the Palestinian People.

Under the 2003 Basic Law (Article 7) made the requirement that Palestinian Citizenship would be "regulated by law." While it implies State of Palestine citizenship, in the intervening time, more than a decade, the Palestinians were never able to put it together. This indicates the actual and practical -- relative importance of the issue.

With the possible exception of the Gaza Strip Citizens, who are always ambiguous; it doesn't appear that the APG left citizenship instruction in the decade it was functioning. After 1959, the Gaza Strip was a Egyptian Military Governorship.

Memory Jogger: Just when you thought that things could not get any more confusing:

Jordan to Revoke Citizenship of PA, PLO Officials
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The Jerusalem Post: By Khaled Abu Toameh [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]04/11/2012 [/FONT](Its very short by good.)
In a surprise move, Jordan has decided to revoke the Jordanian citizenship of Palestinian Authority and PLO officials, sources in Amman disclosed Wednesday.
​

Then there is the issue that, --- the State of Israeli was created outside the reach of the Lausanne Treaty (they were not a party to the treaty). It would be quite difficult to litigate this mess. Just trying to find unbiased Judges and litigators is quite the undertaking. However, the creations of a treaty would be a more likely resolution. However, the since 1948, the Palestinians have had a clear policy that the Arabs of Palestine consider that any attempt by the Jews or any power group of powers to establish a Jewish state in Arab territory is an act of aggression.

Most Respectfully,
R

How many Arab refugees were there in 1948? Maybe 300,000 - or less

 

[Boston1]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, you need to think (THINK) about this in order.

OK, but where does it say that citizenship would expire or be revoked at the termination of the Mandate?

It is my understanding that Israel's nationality law of 1952 denationalized the Palestinians in contravention of international law.

(COMMENT)

The Citizenship Order and associated guidance in the Palestine Order in Council, pertained to a Citizenship to the citizens of the territory to which the Mandate Applied. As territory changed status, becoming independent (Like Jordan), the citizens assumed that new Citizenship.

In 1948, what Arabs were in Israel became Israelis. In April 1950, with the consent of the Palestinians, Jordan's parliament, including 50% Palestinians, voted to accept Jordanian Annexation. In the assumption of Annexation, the Palestinians, with regard to the status otherwise, became Jordanian Citizens (no longer no longer Citizens of the former Mandate Territory). Similarly, when the All Palestine Government assumed political authority in Gaza, the Palestinians became citizens of the APG; limited to Gaza.
In 1959, the Egyptian Government dissolved the APG. Remember, the Israelis did not pass their Citizenship Law until July 1952.

In July 1988, Jordan cut all ties with the West Bank. Until November 1988, the citizenship of the West Bank Arab Palestinians was as ambiguous as the Gaza Strip Palestinians . But the territory was under the effective control of the Israelis. The Palestinian declared Independence in November 1988 and the citizenship issue was resolved by the sole representative of the Palestinian People.

Under the 2003 Basic Law (Article 7) made the requirement that Palestinian Citizenship would be "regulated by law." While it implies State of Palestine citizenship, in the intervening time, more than a decade, the Palestinians were never able to put it together. This indicates the actual and practical -- relative importance of the issue.

With the possible exception of the Gaza Strip Citizens, who are always ambiguous; it doesn't appear that the APG left citizenship instruction in the decade it was functioning. After 1959, the Gaza Strip was a Egyptian Military Governorship.

Memory Jogger: Just when you thought that things could not get any more confusing:

Jordan to Revoke Citizenship of PA, PLO Officials
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The Jerusalem Post: By Khaled Abu Toameh [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]04/11/2012 [/FONT](Its very short by good.)
In a surprise move, Jordan has decided to revoke the Jordanian citizenship of Palestinian Authority and PLO officials, sources in Amman disclosed Wednesday.
​

Then there is the issue that, --- the State of Israeli was created outside the reach of the Lausanne Treaty (they were not a party to the treaty). It would be quite difficult to litigate this mess. Just trying to find unbiased Judges and litigators is quite the undertaking. However, the creations of a treaty would be a more likely resolution. However, the since 1948, the Palestinians have had a clear policy that the Arabs of Palestine consider that any attempt by the Jews or any power group of powers to establish a Jewish state in Arab territory is an act of aggression.

Most Respectfully,
R

How many Arab refugees were there in 1948? Maybe 300,000 - or less

Unknown, massive numbers of Arab Muslim colonists fought alongside the rest of the Arab league and so can only be classified as combatants. The problem arises with the UN refusal to follow its own policies and segregate combatants from refugees.

My guess is significantly less than half the refugees listed in 48 legally qualify for protected persons status under the Geneva conventions.

Thing to remember is that lending aid to a combatant makes you a combatant as well, If mommy so much as packed a lunch, she's outa here.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, you need to think (THINK) about this in order.

OK, but where does it say that citizenship would expire or be revoked at the termination of the Mandate?

It is my understanding that Israel's nationality law of 1952 denationalized the Palestinians in contravention of international law.

(COMMENT)

The Citizenship Order and associated guidance in the Palestine Order in Council, pertained to a Citizenship to the citizens of the territory to which the Mandate Applied. As territory changed status, becoming independent (Like Jordan), the citizens assumed that new Citizenship.

In 1948, what Arabs were in Israel became Israelis. In April 1950, with the consent of the Palestinians, Jordan's parliament, including 50% Palestinians, voted to accept Jordanian Annexation. In the assumption of Annexation, the Palestinians, with regard to the status otherwise, became Jordanian Citizens (no longer no longer Citizens of the former Mandate Territory). Similarly, when the All Palestine Government assumed political authority in Gaza, the Palestinians became citizens of the APG; limited to Gaza.
In 1959, the Egyptian Government dissolved the APG. Remember, the Israelis did not pass their Citizenship Law until July 1952.

In July 1988, Jordan cut all ties with the West Bank. Until November 1988, the citizenship of the West Bank Arab Palestinians was as ambiguous as the Gaza Strip Palestinians . But the territory was under the effective control of the Israelis. The Palestinian declared Independence in November 1988 and the citizenship issue was resolved by the sole representative of the Palestinian People.

Under the 2003 Basic Law (Article 7) made the requirement that Palestinian Citizenship would be "regulated by law." While it implies State of Palestine citizenship, in the intervening time, more than a decade, the Palestinians were never able to put it together. This indicates the actual and practical -- relative importance of the issue.

With the possible exception of the Gaza Strip Citizens, who are always ambiguous; it doesn't appear that the APG left citizenship instruction in the decade it was functioning. After 1959, the Gaza Strip was a Egyptian Military Governorship.

Memory Jogger: Just when you thought that things could not get any more confusing:

Jordan to Revoke Citizenship of PA, PLO Officials
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The Jerusalem Post: By Khaled Abu Toameh [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]04/11/2012 [/FONT](Its very short by good.)
In a surprise move, Jordan has decided to revoke the Jordanian citizenship of Palestinian Authority and PLO officials, sources in Amman disclosed Wednesday.
​

Then there is the issue that, --- the State of Israeli was created outside the reach of the Lausanne Treaty (they were not a party to the treaty). It would be quite difficult to litigate this mess. Just trying to find unbiased Judges and litigators is quite the undertaking. However, the creations of a treaty would be a more likely resolution. However, the since 1948, the Palestinians have had a clear policy that the Arabs of Palestine consider that any attempt by the Jews or any power group of powers to establish a Jewish state in Arab territory is an act of aggression.

Most Respectfully,
R

However, the since 1948, the Palestinians have had a clear policy that the Arabs of Palestine consider that any attempt by the Jews or any power group of powers to establish a Jewish state in Arab territory is an act of aggression.​

More accurately, Palestinian territory. I have posted many things showing that Palestine is a state including recognition by the US. I have seen more but I do not offhand have links.

I know that Palestine has been politically wiped off of western maps, however, I have seen nothing that has legally changed its status.

Your posts are based on the political opinion that there is no Palestine without confirming that it is true.

 

[Indeependent]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, you need to think (THINK) about this in order.

OK, but where does it say that citizenship would expire or be revoked at the termination of the Mandate?

It is my understanding that Israel's nationality law of 1952 denationalized the Palestinians in contravention of international law.

(COMMENT)

The Citizenship Order and associated guidance in the Palestine Order in Council, pertained to a Citizenship to the citizens of the territory to which the Mandate Applied. As territory changed status, becoming independent (Like Jordan), the citizens assumed that new Citizenship.

In 1948, what Arabs were in Israel became Israelis. In April 1950, with the consent of the Palestinians, Jordan's parliament, including 50% Palestinians, voted to accept Jordanian Annexation. In the assumption of Annexation, the Palestinians, with regard to the status otherwise, became Jordanian Citizens (no longer no longer Citizens of the former Mandate Territory). Similarly, when the All Palestine Government assumed political authority in Gaza, the Palestinians became citizens of the APG; limited to Gaza.
In 1959, the Egyptian Government dissolved the APG. Remember, the Israelis did not pass their Citizenship Law until July 1952.

In July 1988, Jordan cut all ties with the West Bank. Until November 1988, the citizenship of the West Bank Arab Palestinians was as ambiguous as the Gaza Strip Palestinians . But the territory was under the effective control of the Israelis. The Palestinian declared Independence in November 1988 and the citizenship issue was resolved by the sole representative of the Palestinian People.

Under the 2003 Basic Law (Article 7) made the requirement that Palestinian Citizenship would be "regulated by law." While it implies State of Palestine citizenship, in the intervening time, more than a decade, the Palestinians were never able to put it together. This indicates the actual and practical -- relative importance of the issue.

With the possible exception of the Gaza Strip Citizens, who are always ambiguous; it doesn't appear that the APG left citizenship instruction in the decade it was functioning. After 1959, the Gaza Strip was a Egyptian Military Governorship.

Memory Jogger: Just when you thought that things could not get any more confusing:

Jordan to Revoke Citizenship of PA, PLO Officials
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The Jerusalem Post: By Khaled Abu Toameh [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]04/11/2012 [/FONT](Its very short by good.)
In a surprise move, Jordan has decided to revoke the Jordanian citizenship of Palestinian Authority and PLO officials, sources in Amman disclosed Wednesday.
​

Then there is the issue that, --- the State of Israeli was created outside the reach of the Lausanne Treaty (they were not a party to the treaty). It would be quite difficult to litigate this mess. Just trying to find unbiased Judges and litigators is quite the undertaking. However, the creations of a treaty would be a more likely resolution. However, the since 1948, the Palestinians have had a clear policy that the Arabs of Palestine consider that any attempt by the Jews or any power group of powers to establish a Jewish state in Arab territory is an act of aggression.

Most Respectfully,
R

However, the since 1948, the Palestinians have had a clear policy that the Arabs of Palestine consider that any attempt by the Jews or any power group of powers to establish a Jewish state in Arab territory is an act of aggression.​

More accurately, Palestinian territory. I have posted many things showing that Palestine is a state including recognition by the US. I have seen more but I do not offhand have links.

I know that Palestine has been politically wiped off of western maps, however, I have seen nothing that has legally changed its status.

Your posts are based on the political opinion that there is no Palestine without confirming that it is true.

YOU can't find a link?
Seriously, I find that highly doubtful.
I have actually come to believe that YOU will fabricate a story on some site and then link to it.
The bottom line is that whatever ANYBODY posts contrary to YOUR interpretation of a document out of context, you will state that document is an opinion.

 

[Billo_Really]

This is a joke thread. The question of whether the occupation exists, is not a debatable issue. There isn't a single country on the planet that agrees with the troll that started this thread.

The "occupied territories", are the territories Israel seized during the '67 war. They are the West Bank, Gaza, Golan Heights and East Jerusalem. UNSC resolution 242, binding or not, states that it is "inadmissible to acquire land by force".

Israel seized this land by force. Ergo, the occupation.

There is only one thing you can do to an occupation and that is to end it. So fuck your little word games. The areas described above, are not Israel's and never will be Israel's.

Those who disagree, are no different than the Nazis trying to take over Poland.

 

[Roudy]

Well thats the lie the terrorist sympathizers would like us to believe.

But a careful examination of the facts reveals the exact opposite to be true.

The Arab league announced its invasion of Israel in 1948 ( document provided ) The war has never ended according to the Geneva conventions definition ( document provided ) And the UN has clearly specified the area west of the Jordan as being reserved for the creation of a national Jewish homeland ( document provided )

Ergo any Arab Muslim colonists maintaining a combatant stance against the state of Israel within the area specified by the mandate as being for the creation of an Jewish national homeland are enemy combatants and guilty of occupying Israeli territory

The Arab league announced its invasion of Israel in 1948 ( document provided )​

This document?

5 Arab League declaration on the invasion of Palestine- 15 May 1948

Where does say anything about invading Israel?

And how did that work out? No so well, I heard.

 

[Roudy]

This is a joke thread. The question of whether the occupation exists, is not a debatable issue. There isn't a single country on the planet that agrees with the troll that started this thread.

The "occupied territories", are the territories Israel seized during the '67 war. They are the West Bank, Gaza, Golan Heights and East Jerusalem. UNSC resolution 242, binding or not, states that it is "inadmissible to acquire land by force".

Israel seized this land by force. Ergo, the occupation.

There is only one thing you can do to an occupation and that is to end it. So fuck your little word games. The areas described above, are not Israel's and never will be Israel's.

Those who disagree, are no different than the Nazis trying to take over Poland.

You're listening to al Jazeera too much, Achmed. Five Arab countries attacked Israel, not to create this mythical Palestine, but to destroy the Jewish state and divide the proceeds between themselves. In fact all the attacks against the Jewish state were never to create this mythical Palestine, but always to destroy the Jewish state. So the so called "occupation" is merely a series of fuckups by Arab attackers.

 

[Roudy]

The Arab league refused even today to recognize the state of Israel, so they incorrectly referred to the area of the mandate they invaded by its phony name. "palestine"

Palestine has been a state since the Treaty of Lausanne.

Do you have anything that says different?

If I recall correctly, you have been told about 96 times the Treaty of Lausanne has been superseded.
Or was that 96,000 times?
What paragraph of the outdated Treaty are you referencing?

They never let the facts get in their way.

 

[Boston1]

I always find it interesting that the people who are purportedly crying foul and demanding peace are the ones so quick with the profanities and violent tendencies.

The simply truth is that the Arab League invaded the mandated area in an attempt to destroy the fledgling state of Israel. What land they did occupy they illegally annexed into their own territories.

After the 67 war some enemy combatant forces remained and hid within the refugees occupying area intended for the creation of the state of Israel. Which were already a mixture of former combatants and refugees. The UN illegally lent aid to the enemy combatants and refused to segregate them from any legitimate refugees.

So really if you are going to suggest that Israel is occupying the mandated area then you are equally as compelled by international law to consider the Arab Muslim colonists forces to also be occupying the mandated area.

Either both are occupying the area, or neither.

The issue isn't one of legalities. Its one of PR. The Arab Muslim PR machine has run rough shod over the truth long enough.

Whats funny, is that international law more accurately supports the exact opposite narrative as what the Arab Muslim colonists would prefer us to believe

 

[P F Tinmore]

I always find it interesting that the people who are purportedly crying foul and demanding peace are the ones so quick with the profanities and violent tendencies.

The simply truth is that the Arab League invaded the mandated area in an attempt to destroy the fledgling state of Israel. What land they did occupy they illegally annexed into their own territories.

After the 67 war some enemy combatant forces remained and hid within the refugees occupying area intended for the creation of the state of Israel. Which were already a mixture of former combatants and refugees. The UN illegally lent aid to the enemy combatants and refused to segregate them from any legitimate refugees.

So really if you are going to suggest that Israel is occupying the mandated area then you are equally as compelled by international law to consider the Arab Muslim colonists forces to also be occupying the mandated area.

Either both are occupying the area, or neither.

The issue isn't one of legalities. Its one of PR. The Arab Muslim PR machine has run rough shod over the truth long enough.

Whats funny, is that international law more accurately supports the exact opposite narrative as what the Arab Muslim colonists would prefer us to believe

the Arab League invaded the mandated area​

The Mandate was not a place. It had no land, borders or citizens. The Mandate was assigned to Palestine. To call it "the mandated area" is disingenuous and misleading.

 

[P F Tinmore]

This is a joke thread. The question of whether the occupation exists, is not a debatable issue. There isn't a single country on the planet that agrees with the troll that started this thread.

The "occupied territories", are the territories Israel seized during the '67 war. They are the West Bank, Gaza, Golan Heights and East Jerusalem. UNSC resolution 242, binding or not, states that it is "inadmissible to acquire land by force".

Israel seized this land by force. Ergo, the occupation.

There is only one thing you can do to an occupation and that is to end it. So fuck your little word games. The areas described above, are not Israel's and never will be Israel's.

Those who disagree, are no different than the Nazis trying to take over Poland.

You're listening to al Jazeera too much, Achmed. Five Arab countries attacked Israel, not to create this mythical Palestine, but to destroy the Jewish state and divide the proceeds between themselves. In fact all the attacks against the Jewish state were never to create this mythical Palestine, but always to destroy the Jewish state. So the so called "occupation" is merely a series of fuckups by Arab attackers.

Five Arab countries attacked Israel,​

Where does it say that?
5 Arab League declaration on the invasion of Palestine- 15 May 1948

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, you need to think (THINK) about this in order.

OK, but where does it say that citizenship would expire or be revoked at the termination of the Mandate?

It is my understanding that Israel's nationality law of 1952 denationalized the Palestinians in contravention of international law.

(COMMENT)

The Citizenship Order and associated guidance in the Palestine Order in Council, pertained to a Citizenship to the citizens of the territory to which the Mandate Applied. As territory changed status, becoming independent (Like Jordan), the citizens assumed that new Citizenship.

In 1948, what Arabs were in Israel became Israelis. In April 1950, with the consent of the Palestinians, Jordan's parliament, including 50% Palestinians, voted to accept Jordanian Annexation. In the assumption of Annexation, the Palestinians, with regard to the status otherwise, became Jordanian Citizens (no longer no longer Citizens of the former Mandate Territory). Similarly, when the All Palestine Government assumed political authority in Gaza, the Palestinians became citizens of the APG; limited to Gaza.
In 1959, the Egyptian Government dissolved the APG. Remember, the Israelis did not pass their Citizenship Law until July 1952.

In July 1988, Jordan cut all ties with the West Bank. Until November 1988, the citizenship of the West Bank Arab Palestinians was as ambiguous as the Gaza Strip Palestinians . But the territory was under the effective control of the Israelis. The Palestinian declared Independence in November 1988 and the citizenship issue was resolved by the sole representative of the Palestinian People.

Under the 2003 Basic Law (Article 7) made the requirement that Palestinian Citizenship would be "regulated by law." While it implies State of Palestine citizenship, in the intervening time, more than a decade, the Palestinians were never able to put it together. This indicates the actual and practical -- relative importance of the issue.

With the possible exception of the Gaza Strip Citizens, who are always ambiguous; it doesn't appear that the APG left citizenship instruction in the decade it was functioning. After 1959, the Gaza Strip was a Egyptian Military Governorship.

Memory Jogger: Just when you thought that things could not get any more confusing:

Jordan to Revoke Citizenship of PA, PLO Officials
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The Jerusalem Post: By Khaled Abu Toameh [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]04/11/2012 [/FONT](Its very short by good.)
In a surprise move, Jordan has decided to revoke the Jordanian citizenship of Palestinian Authority and PLO officials, sources in Amman disclosed Wednesday.
​

Then there is the issue that, --- the State of Israeli was created outside the reach of the Lausanne Treaty (they were not a party to the treaty). It would be quite difficult to litigate this mess. Just trying to find unbiased Judges and litigators is quite the undertaking. However, the creations of a treaty would be a more likely resolution. However, the since 1948, the Palestinians have had a clear policy that the Arabs of Palestine consider that any attempt by the Jews or any power group of powers to establish a Jewish state in Arab territory is an act of aggression.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Citizenship Order and associated guidance in the Palestine Order in Council, pertained to a Citizenship to the citizens of the territory to which the Mandate Applied. As territory changed status, becoming independent (Like Jordan), the citizens assumed that new Citizenship.​

Jordan was never a part of the citizenship order. Why are you trying to confuse the issue? The Citizenship order applied only to Palestine. So, what changed in Palestine?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, you need to think (THINK) about this in order.

OK, but where does it say that citizenship would expire or be revoked at the termination of the Mandate?

It is my understanding that Israel's nationality law of 1952 denationalized the Palestinians in contravention of international law.

(COMMENT)

The Citizenship Order and associated guidance in the Palestine Order in Council, pertained to a Citizenship to the citizens of the territory to which the Mandate Applied. As territory changed status, becoming independent (Like Jordan), the citizens assumed that new Citizenship.

In 1948, what Arabs were in Israel became Israelis. In April 1950, with the consent of the Palestinians, Jordan's parliament, including 50% Palestinians, voted to accept Jordanian Annexation. In the assumption of Annexation, the Palestinians, with regard to the status otherwise, became Jordanian Citizens (no longer no longer Citizens of the former Mandate Territory). Similarly, when the All Palestine Government assumed political authority in Gaza, the Palestinians became citizens of the APG; limited to Gaza.
In 1959, the Egyptian Government dissolved the APG. Remember, the Israelis did not pass their Citizenship Law until July 1952.

In July 1988, Jordan cut all ties with the West Bank. Until November 1988, the citizenship of the West Bank Arab Palestinians was as ambiguous as the Gaza Strip Palestinians . But the territory was under the effective control of the Israelis. The Palestinian declared Independence in November 1988 and the citizenship issue was resolved by the sole representative of the Palestinian People.

Under the 2003 Basic Law (Article 7) made the requirement that Palestinian Citizenship would be "regulated by law." While it implies State of Palestine citizenship, in the intervening time, more than a decade, the Palestinians were never able to put it together. This indicates the actual and practical -- relative importance of the issue.

With the possible exception of the Gaza Strip Citizens, who are always ambiguous; it doesn't appear that the APG left citizenship instruction in the decade it was functioning. After 1959, the Gaza Strip was a Egyptian Military Governorship.

Memory Jogger: Just when you thought that things could not get any more confusing:

Jordan to Revoke Citizenship of PA, PLO Officials
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The Jerusalem Post: By Khaled Abu Toameh [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]04/11/2012 [/FONT](Its very short by good.)
In a surprise move, Jordan has decided to revoke the Jordanian citizenship of Palestinian Authority and PLO officials, sources in Amman disclosed Wednesday.
​

Then there is the issue that, --- the State of Israeli was created outside the reach of the Lausanne Treaty (they were not a party to the treaty). It would be quite difficult to litigate this mess. Just trying to find unbiased Judges and litigators is quite the undertaking. However, the creations of a treaty would be a more likely resolution. However, the since 1948, the Palestinians have had a clear policy that the Arabs of Palestine consider that any attempt by the Jews or any power group of powers to establish a Jewish state in Arab territory is an act of aggression.

Most Respectfully,
R

Similarly, when the All Palestine Government assumed political authority in Gaza, the Palestinians became citizens of the APG; limited to Gaza.​

Could you clarify that statement? The Palestinians were already citizens of Palestine. For what reason would they want to change that?

 

[P F Tinmore]

I always find it interesting that the people who are purportedly crying foul and demanding peace are the ones so quick with the profanities and violent tendencies.

The simply truth is that the Arab League invaded the mandated area in an attempt to destroy the fledgling state of Israel. What land they did occupy they illegally annexed into their own territories.

After the 67 war some enemy combatant forces remained and hid within the refugees occupying area intended for the creation of the state of Israel. Which were already a mixture of former combatants and refugees. The UN illegally lent aid to the enemy combatants and refused to segregate them from any legitimate refugees.

So really if you are going to suggest that Israel is occupying the mandated area then you are equally as compelled by international law to consider the Arab Muslim colonists forces to also be occupying the mandated area.

Either both are occupying the area, or neither.

The issue isn't one of legalities. Its one of PR. The Arab Muslim PR machine has run rough shod over the truth long enough.

Whats funny, is that international law more accurately supports the exact opposite narrative as what the Arab Muslim colonists would prefer us to believe

What land they did occupy they illegally annexed into their own territories.​

You need to get with Rocco. He claims that Jordan's annexation of the West Bank was legal.

 

[P F Tinmore]

I always find it interesting that the people who are purportedly crying foul and demanding peace are the ones so quick with the profanities and violent tendencies.

The simply truth is that the Arab League invaded the mandated area in an attempt to destroy the fledgling state of Israel. What land they did occupy they illegally annexed into their own territories.

After the 67 war some enemy combatant forces remained and hid within the refugees occupying area intended for the creation of the state of Israel. Which were already a mixture of former combatants and refugees. The UN illegally lent aid to the enemy combatants and refused to segregate them from any legitimate refugees.

So really if you are going to suggest that Israel is occupying the mandated area then you are equally as compelled by international law to consider the Arab Muslim colonists forces to also be occupying the mandated area.

Either both are occupying the area, or neither.

The issue isn't one of legalities. Its one of PR. The Arab Muslim PR machine has run rough shod over the truth long enough.

Whats funny, is that international law more accurately supports the exact opposite narrative as what the Arab Muslim colonists would prefer us to believe

The Arab Muslim PR machine has run rough shod over the truth long enough.​

Examples?

 

[Phoenall]

Between the Geneva conventions, the mandate text and the 1948 declaration of war its kinda no brainer who's occupying who.

The Arab league forces are still occupying land intended for the creation of a national Jewish homeland

Where is that declaration of war against Israel mentioned in your link?

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwiG0r7c27jKAhXGlYMKHYuHDF0QFggcMAA&url=http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/foreignpolicy/mfadocuments/yearbook1/pages/5%20arab%20league%20declaration%20on%20the%20invasion%20of%20pales.aspx&usg=AFQjCNE8oVQuUM5yT0bso85hTHl69FtvQQ&sig2=510F7uscAWEu0YQ1MlOe1w&bvm=bv.112064104,d.amc

It does not need to be as it is a proven fact

 

[Phoenall]

149. This seems to have been the basic assumption, but it proved to be a false one, since the history of the last twenty-five years has established the fact that not only the creation of a Jewish State but even the continuation of the building of the Jewish National Home by restricted immigration could be implemented only by the use of some considerable force. It cannot be properly contended that the use of force as a means of establishing the National Home was either intended by the Mandate or implied by its provisions. On the contrary, the provisions of the Mandate should preclude any systematic use of force for the purpose of its application. In its preamble, the Mandate states that the Principal Allied Powers agreed to entrust Palestine to a mandatory Power for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.147/ The guiding principle of that Article was the well-being of peoples not yet able to stand by themselves.

150. It has been suggested that the well-being of the indigenous population of Palestine might be ensured by the unfettered development of the Jewish National Home, "Well-being" in a practical sense, however, must be something more than a mere objective conception; and the Arabs, thinking subjectively, have demonstrated by their acts their belief that the conversion of Palestine into a Jewish State against their will would be very much opposed to their conception of what is essential to their well-being. To contend, therefore, that there is an international obligation to the effect that Jewish immigration should continue with a view to establishing a Jewish majority in the whole of Palestine, would mean ignoring the wishes of the Arab population and their views as to their own well-being. This would involve an apparent violation of what was the governing principle of Article 22 of the Covenant.

A/364 of 3 September 1947

And when we include the preceding articles we see that you have once again manipulated the meaning and intent of your copy and paste. Here they are for all to see


143. The statement recognized for the first time "the ancient historic connection" of the Jews with Palestine144/, and declared that they were in Palestine "as of right and not on sufferance". It, however, excluded in its own terms "the disappearance or subordination of the Arabic population, language or customs in Palestine" or "the imposition of Jewish nationality upon the inhabitants of Palestine as a whole", and made it clear that in the eyes of the mandatory Power, the Jewish National Home was to be founded in Palestine and not that Palestine as a whole was to be converted into a Jewish National Home.

144. It should be noted here that this construction, which restricted considerably the scope of the National Home, was made prior to the confirmation of the Mandate by the Council of the League of Nations145/ and was formally accepted at the time by the Executive of the Zionist Organization, in its capacity as the "appropriate Jewish agency" provided for in article 4 of the Mandate.146/

145. Nevertheless, neither the Balfour Declaration nor the Mandate precluded the eventual creation of a Jewish State. The Mandate in its Preamble recognized, with regard to the Jewish people, the "grounds for reconstituting their National Home". By providing, as one of the main obligations of the mandatory Power the facilitation of Jewish immigration, it conferred upon the Jews an opportunity, through large-scale immigration, to create eventually a Jewish State with a Jewish majority.

146. Both the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate involved international commitments to the Jewish people as a whole. It was obvious that these commitments were not limited only to the Jewish population of Palestine, since at the time there were only some 80,000 Jews there.

147. This would imply that all Jews in the world who wish to go to Palestine would have the right to do so. This view, however, would seem to be unrealistic in the sense that a country as small and poor as Palestine could never accommodate all the Jews in the world.

148. When the Mandate was approved, all concerned were aware of the existence of an overwhelming Arab majority in Palestine. More over, the King-Crane Report, among others, had warned that the Zionist program could not be carried out except by force of arms. It would seem clear, therefore, that the provisions of the Mandate relating to the Jewish National Home could be based only on the assumption that sooner or later the Arab fears would gradually be overcome and that Arab hostility to the terms of the Mandate would in time weaken and disappear.





As everyone knows the LoN partitioned Palestine into 2 separate pieces to overcome the above problems. The greater part was what is now Jordan and was called arab Palestine, the lesser which is Israel was called Jewish Palestine or the Jewish NATIONal home.

 

[Phoenall]

Israel occupies Palestine, of course.

Yes Jewish Palestine, and the arab muslims want to take it away from them.

 

[Phoenall]

Well thats the lie the terrorist sympathizers would like us to believe.

But a careful examination of the facts reveals the exact opposite to be true.

The Arab league announced its invasion of Israel in 1948 ( document provided ) The war has never ended according to the Geneva conventions definition ( document provided ) And the UN has clearly specified the area west of the Jordan as being reserved for the creation of a national Jewish homeland ( document provided )

Ergo any Arab Muslim colonists maintaining a combatant stance against the state of Israel within the area specified by the mandate as being for the creation of an Jewish national homeland are enemy combatants and guilty of occupying Israeli territory

The Arab league announced its invasion of Israel in 1948 ( document provided )​

This document?

5 Arab League declaration on the invasion of Palestine- 15 May 1948

Where does say anything about invading Israel?

Where does it mention invading Jordan and Egypt ? As that is what they did starting in 1947. Or do those not count as like Israel they did not exist until the 1940's ?