First, find out what isn't true…

February 8, 2011

Palestine. A country, a state? Mandate period treaty documents between Palestine and Great Britain, Ireland, Iraq, Syria, TransJordan, Turkey, Egypt seem to confirm that it was.


…It’s actually quite simple. If it isn’t the “acknowledged” sovereign territory of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt or Israel, it’s a territory of Palestine…

ShortLink http://wp.me/pDB7k-Qh

League of Nations Mandate for Palestine:
The Council of the League of Nations “Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; “
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace%20Process/Guide%20to%20the%20Peace%20Process/The%20Mandate%20for%20Palestine

League of Nations Convenant: Article 22. Part I. (4th paragraph)
“Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.”
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/leagcov.asp#art22

League of Nations 30 November 1937 C.495.M.336.1937.VI. Geneva, November 30th, 1937

Chapter X. – Conclusion
” It means that the Arabs must acquiesce in the exclusion from their sovereignty of a piece of territory, long occupied and once ruled by them.”

——

Additional research from Michael

Prior to the Mandate – Great Britain, Ireland and Palestine:
“Article 2. The Money Order Service between the contracting countries shall be performed exclusively by the agency of Offices of Exchange.
Article 7. Duplicate Orders shall be issued only by the Postal Administration of the country of payment and in conformity with the regulations established or to be established in that country.
Article 8. When it is desired that an error in the name of the payee shall be corrected, or that the amount of a Money Order shall be repaid to the remitter, application must be made by the remitter to the Chief Office of the country in which the Order was issued.
Article 9. Repayment of an Order shall not, in any case, be made until it has been ascertained, through the Chief Office of the country where such Order is payable, that the Order has not been paid and that the said Office authorizes the repayment.
Article 10. Orders shall remain payable in each country for twelve months after the expiration of the month of issue ; and the amounts of all Money Orders not paid within that period shall revert to and remain the property of the Administration of the country of issue.”

http://untreaty.un.org/unts/60001_120000/20/20/00038953.pdf

Iraq, Syria, TransJordan, Turkey and Palestine:
“Article I. The High Contracting Parties undertake to créât and maintain an ” International Office
for Information regarding Locusts “. Its seat shall be at Damascus, and its expenses shall be defrayed by the Contracting Parties in equal shares.
Article II. The Office shall operate under the authority and control of a Committee composed of delegates of the Contracting States.
Article III. The expenses of setting up the office and the annual expenses of running it shall be supported by the Contracting States according to the conditions laid down by the Organic Statute mentioned in Article II.
Article IV. The contributions of each of the Contracting States shall be paid in through the intermediary of the High Commissariat of the French Republic in the States of Syria to the Bank of Syria and Lebanon at Damascus, whence the money shall be withdrawn, as need arises, on the order of the Director of the Office. Each of the Contracting States shall make its first annual payment within three months from the date when this Agreement is approved by their respective Governments.”

http://untreaty.un.org/unts/60001_120000/17/1/00032024.pdf

International Commerce Agreement with Egypt and Palestine:
“The Egyptian Government therefore agrees, on the basis of complete reciprocity, to grant most-favoured-nation treatment to products of the soil and of industry originating in Palestine and imported into Egyptian territory for consumption, re-exportation or transit.”
http://untreaty.un.org/unts/60001_120000/16/8/00030366.pdf

About these ads

4 Comments »


  1. Hi Talknic,

    other proves would be:
    1.) Nationality Law in accordance with Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne.
    2.) The obligations of the successor state regarding the transfer public debts. Or granted concessions (see Mavrommatis Concessions”).
    3.) The mandatory treated Palestine like other states when it came to import taxing.

    Comment by Michael — February 16, 2011 @ 4:49 pm


    • Hi Michael..

      In my original draft, I wrote all of them up. Then filtered through arguing myself with objections likely to be presented.

      I think what remain are the clearest examples. (there really only needs to be one)

      Treaty of Lausanne ARTICLE 30. “Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”

      Not sure how this relates. A ‘transfer’ had not taken place over Palestine. The British were exercising authority over a ‘provisional state’ under tutelage. The provisions are clear. To become independent.

      2.) The obligations of the successor state regarding the transfer public debts. Or granted concessions (see Mavrommatis Concessions”).

      Likewise, it passes responsibility to the Mandate over a Provisional State.

      3.) The mandatory treated Palestine like other states when it came to import taxing.

      A ‘Provisional’ State.

      —-

      Although the examples you’ve given point to the legal status of Palestine pre 15th May 1948 as a provisional state, we have to accept the fact that Sovereign Independent Statehood had never been declared.

      We also have to accept the decision made by the majority of the International Community of Nations/States.

      Who are we trying to convince? The Hasbarbarians, Israeli propagandists, illegal settlers, religious nutters for a Greater Israel? Forget it, they will never change.

      At best, one can put forward factual, easily understood information on which people can build an informed opinion, in the hope that they will carry the notions to their representatives who might be in a position to influence the situation.

      —-

      Who is finally responsible for ignoring the notions of self determination for the people of Mandate era Palestine?

      1) UNGA Res 181 was not illegal. It was non-binding, outlining only the conditions either representatives could declare Independent Sovereignty over the recommended boundaries. It was passed by the majority of the UN GA in the hope that it would bring about a peaceful solution. To be sure it was not a fair apportionment of territory and it ignored the notion of self determination, the motion was however, carried by the majority.

      2) The Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel according to UNGA Res 181, was not illegal. It was a gamble. A declaration, to be accepted or not, by a majority of the International Community of Nations/States in order to be recognized as and accepted as a part of the International Community of Nations/States

      3) Like a convention passes into Customary International Law when ratified by the Majority of States (even if they are not UN Members), when there is recognition of statehood by the majority of the International Community of Nations/States, Sovereign Statehood becomes irrevocable in and over the territory declared, on behalf of the citizens within it.

      4) Recognition is not by the UN, though the UN might recommend how it can legally come about and offer assistance in bringing it about. We see this by the fact that there are countries within the UN who do not recognize each other and there are countries who are not members of the UN who have given recognition. The UN accepts states as Members on the recommendation of the UNSC, AFTER they exist.

      5) It was the choice of the recognizing nations to forgo self determination by the British Mandate era Palestinians, Jewish and non-Jewish alike, by recognizing Israel as an Independent Sovereign State.

      It is from that point that the issue can be effectively argued in respect to the territory outside the actual legal extent of Israeli sovereignty.

      It can be argued using the words of the Israeli Government itself in it’s announcement of the Declaration, using the words of the various recognitions, the limitations they contain and the dates they were made. It can be argued using the words of the Israeli Government when confirming Israel’s declared and recognized boundaries in statements to the UNSC and it can be argued using numerous UNSC resolutions. None of which is hearsay or theory.

      Given the recent US Veto, I’m beginning to wonder if justice is possible at all.

      Comment by talknic — February 19, 2011 @ 9:26 am


      • Hi Talknic,

        “Not sure how this relates. A ‘transfer’ had not taken place over Palestine. The British were exercising authority over a ‘provisional state’ under tutelage. The provisions are clear. To become independent.”

        Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne handles, which nationality the turkish subject who habutually reside in territories detached from turkey should get. The Nationality Law of Palestine (Citizenship Order in 1925). In any case the Chairman of the Permanent Mandates Commission pointed out that Palestine was a State and that one sign was this nationality law.

        > Likewise, it passes responsibility to the Mandate over a Provisional State.

        The court doesn’t say any word about a “Provisional” state. It substitutes the word “state” in a Protocol to the Treaty of Lausanne with “Palestine” and not with “provisional Palestine”. The state was not “provional”.

        > Although the examples you’ve given point to the legal status of Palestine pre 15th May 1948 as a provisional state, we have to accept the fact that Sovereign Independent Statehood had never been declared.

        Palestine was not independet, but it also wasn’t provisional. It’s independance was provisionally recognized. It’s statehood was not never questioned.

        > 1) UNGA Res 181 was not illegal.

        Why did the UN General Assembly reject several proposals to handle the matter in the International Court of Justice and the question if it’s authority? How can this resolution be legal, when it denied all Palestinians (whether jewish or not) a referendum on this matter and therefore the right of self determination?

        > 2) The Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel according to UNGA Res 181, was not illegal.

        How can it be not illegal, when it’s population was never asked and the Security Council Resolution demanded to abstain from any political act (like declarations)?

        Comment by Michael — March 9, 2011 @ 3:15 pm


        • Palestine was a provisionally independent state.
          An entity cannot effectively declare independence while any of it’s territory is under the control of someone else. For 2,000 years at least there has been some entity or another in control of some or all of Palestine.

          The provision was that it develop the institutions of state. A referendum never took place. (Thwarted at every turn by the Zionist desire for a Jewish state). UNGA Res 181 was a lopsided and naive attempt by the world community to find a peaceful solution.

          The resolution itself was non-binding. Neither legal or illegal. It was a suggestion only, put forward by a majority, it could be taken up by either party, perhaps neither. The Israeli declaration was not illegal according to the conditions UNGA Res 181 set out.

          Israel now exists by the consensus of the majority of the International Community of States. It was their choice to forgo the right of self determination for the population of mandate Palestine. Israel has trashed every trust it was afforded.

          More important is the issue of what can be done about it now, with the least bloodshed.

          Israel is a fanatical state and force would result in a LOT of bloodshed and as long as the Jewish lobby can convince the US, the US will veto any action.

          Zionist propaganda is firmly entrenched in the minds of those who could make a change. Every point has been repeated over and over despite lacking logic or veracity. It has seeped into every nook and cranny, at every level.

          Changing peoples attitudes and beliefs is difficult at the best of times. I believe pointing to Israel’s obligations, in it’s own words, is probably the best way of convincing folk of the injustices since declaration.

          Under UNGA Res 181 people were not supposed to be dispossessed. The notion in UNGA Res 181 was that there would be two states, where folk were to have been guaranteed equal rights, equal freedoms. Under that notion, would it really have mattered which state one lived in?

          I believe people should be striving to get to that point. However, it will never happen as long as the fallacies surrounding the issue are perpetuated.

          Comment by talknic — March 10, 2011 @ 1:05 am


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

The Shocking Blue Green Theme Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 27 other followers

%d bloggers like this: