BS: Palestine

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Sep 11 - 05:36 AM

As the situation stands today, the following should be all for acceptance of the Palestinian proposal and for the granting of full UN membership and recognition of Palestine as an independent sovereign state:

- Anyone who wishes to do permanent damage to the United Nations;
- Israeli hardline "zionists";
- Iran;
- Syria;
- Turkey.

Oddly enough counted amongst the ranks of those opposed are Hamas and Hezbollah who see the formal creation and recognition of such a Palestinian state as a betrayal.

Some facts with regard to this newly created Palestinian State:

1. It becomes internationally responsible for the activities of its citizens within its borders.

2. It becomes responsible for acts committed by its citizens against other nations and their citizens.

3. Becoming a full member of the United Nations requires that Palestine (new member) FORMALLY RECOGNISE the State of Israel (member since 1949) and acknowledge their right to live in peace free from threat of attack.

So grant Palestine "statehood" and the next rocket, mortar shell or kidnapping attempt initiated from inside Palestine against Israel all of a sudden becomes an attack by one member state on another. The state of Palestine as represented by Mahmoud Abbas cannot throw their hands in the air and claim we're sorry but we cannot control our own citizens - that would no longer be accepted as the government of Palestine you have to control your citizens if they are engaged in attacking another member state.

Palestine could of course acquire allies to aid their cause and by gathering them around her could possibly attempt to deter Israeli retaliation (Which Israel by the terms of the UN Charter would be fully justified in taking). But that takes us back to the situation that existed in 1948 and we all know how that turned out don't we, only this time the game would be seen through to completion and basically I would not give a "rats ass" for the chances of Egyptian; Syrian; Lebanese; Jordanian or Palestinian forces, all of whom for their entire existence have only ever performed one function and exercised one role - that of suppressing their own people in order to keep the ruling cliques in power. The IDF on the other hand for the last 63 years has fought and prepared itself to defend their country - they have learned well and they have become damn good at it.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Sep 11 - 03:56 AM

McGrath has been pleading from the start of this thread that we concern ourselves mainly with the current issue of UN membership and statehood, on the very reasonable grounds that the historical background has been debated before, at some length.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 24 Sep 11 - 02:54 AM

It's curious to see who is getting hot under the collar about this.

The UN had (and has) power to admit members. In my view it should admit Palestine as a member and sufficient reason is the need to be even-handed. It does not have the right to give away the land of others. It is not a legitimate world government.

I have not said that the treaties ending WW1 were not valid as between the parties. All I have said is that the parties to them had no right to give away the land of others. They could of course renounce their own claims to lands.

Thus the appointment of the UK to govern the mandated territories conferred no right to do so.

Thus the 1947/8 disposition also conferred no right to give away the land of others. Note "others".

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 11:27 PM

Don't pretend to be more stupid than you are, McGrath; it really isn't necessary!

Regards

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,livelylass
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 06:17 PM

As the colonial imposed plantations of Northern Ireland haven't fared too well, my assumption is that the colonially imposed Israel is likely to fare similarly.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 05:59 PM

One thing I will say is that I have never met a Palestinian person I did not really like. Their level of politeness is amazing..not that I would stereotype. I am sure there are rude ones, but the ones I have met are very charming and humble. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 05:45 PM

"the relevant date is 1947"

No - the relevant date is 2011.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 04:35 PM

Any statements criticizing Israel are regarded as anti-Semitic.

The area was flooded by Zionist elements from Europe and North America, immensely loading the situation against the Palestinians.

Often cited by Israelis is the fact that many Palestinians live in Israel, but they don't mention the restrictions.
Palestinians and other Arabs living in Israel (20 per cent of the population are severely restricted.
Many of fearful of making objections for fear of reprisals.
1. The "law of return" guarantees every Jew automatic Israeli citizenship if desired, at the expense of those who have lived on the land for generations (One additional aspect of this is the attempt to confine Bedouins to specific towns).
2. Non-Jews cannot perform military service, baring them from a broad spectrum of services tied to 'full' citizenship.
3. A Knesset law bars Palestinians married to Israelis from living with their spouses in Israel.
4. Budgets for infrastructure of Palestinian towns in Israel are miniscule, and if the town is not specifically "recoginzed," basic services such as water, sewers and roads are denied.
5. The educational system is biased in favor of Jewish customs.
6. The idea of collective rights and protection of the Palestinian minority are absent from the Laws of Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Stringsinger
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 04:12 PM

Here is an important article on this topic.
The Occupation That Time Forgot

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Stringsinger
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 04:03 PM

Israel may not exclude non-Jews but many that are not Jewish are second-class citizens.
This is the problem with a theocracy, either the non-believers are excluded or given second class status. This was at one time true under the Ottoman Empire which allowed Jews to be in their society but they were taxed for their trouble.

Jordan, today, is not a Palestinian State. Of course the British Government had control over their mandates regarding the Mid-East and Palestine but these mandates are not accepted now by the Palestinian people.

:
"So if Arabs take land by war, it is OK, but if Jews try to recover it, it is a crime??"

The problem is that Jews also take land by war. They also occupy that land by war.

There is only one solution. A one-state solution whereby Jews and Arabs will have a co-equal form of government in these disputed areas. It probably should be a socialist regime.

As we know, this is not going to happen because of the intransigence of Israel and the animosity of Palestinians.

Netanyahu represents the Likud Party view that is analogous to the Bush W. and Nixon White House views that culminate in a power move that doesn't include the needs of the people in the country.

Israelis are beginning to discover what this reactionary power move means when their economy is tanking for the unemployed and disenfranchised. in their country.

We may have to have a U.S. Spring, and Israeli Spring in addition to the Arab Spring.

In the meantime, Israel will have to become more secular, the Palestinians will have to develop more of a secular state and the underlying division based on religion will have to be removed. This has a historical precedent going back to the Jews and the Philistines (read Palestinians) and the tribal warfare of the time.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,livelylass
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 03:56 PM

"The fact that you can ask this question, while ignoring the many places where it is prohibited to live if one IS Jewish shows a lack of... humanity?"

So, based on this comment, am I to assume that you believe it is wrong to assign a land mass as belonging to one particular set of individuals based on their race and/or religion?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 03:55 PM

Richard ~~ One more attempt to get it into your thick skull ~ the relevant date is 1947, by which time the United Nations Organisation was in recognised control of international legislation, with the agreement of its members ~~ WHICH INCLUDED SYRIA, LEBANON, EGYPT, SAUDI ARABIA... all of which had power to vote in its deliberations. A motion came up for the establishment of a Jewish State within borders declared by that authority. This motion was carried, to date from the agreed time of the ending of the British mandate, held from the former League of Nations. This motion was approved, in Security Council & by the General Assembly, despite votes cast against by the above-named; who, as members, were bound by that membership to accept the Organisation's decisions. The continued existence of the Ottoman Empire, the status Turkey had previously enjoyed in the region, were entirely irrelevant to this Resolution, made by international agreement by the body recognised worldwide at that time as competent to make such decisions ~ including the above-named, who thereby provided the 'mandate' for Israel's existence which you demanded above, much as they might have wished otherwise & sought to evade such responsibility.

Now please stop wittering on about Turks, Ottomans, Armchairs, or Baths ~~ & face the facts; as the above-mentioned dissident members of the Organisation, to both their shame & their bane, failed to do.

Otherwise away and play your own games.

(Much Ado About Nothing, Act I, scene 1:~

Beatrice: I wonder you will still be talking, Signor Benedick. Nobody marks you.)

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: mg
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 03:45 PM

I do not think all the above are considered exclusively Islamic states..what is Iran? And I do not know where Jews are excluded, and I would hope nowhere...but there are other religions practiced in some of those places...various Christian groups and others as well I am sure. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 03:38 PM

There was no government representing the people of Palestine involved in those events 90 years ago. That's just one reason why they have no relevance to the present issue.

The representatives of the people of Palestine today are seeking recognition as a state. What valid grounds are there for denying this, or for thinking that it is not also in the interests of the people of Israel?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 03:33 PM

Livelylass,

"Honest question, is it appropriate to designate a land mass as belonging to members of a specific single religion and/or race in exclusion of others today?"




You mean like the Vatican being a Catholic state, or Saudi Arabia , Jordan, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Morocco, Algeria, Yemen, Oman, etc being Islamic states???

Israel DOES NOT EXCLUDE Non-Jews from citizenship- can you say the same about the Arab nations ( in regards to non-Islams?)

The fact that you can ask this question, while ignoring the many places where it is prohibited to live if one IS Jewish shows a lack of... humanity?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 03:27 PM

Richard,

Please learn to read. YOU have just stated again that the treaties that ended WW1 and established a number of nations are invalid.


If YOU only apply this to Israel, and not to Turkey, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan et al, YOU are a obviously anti-semetic bigot.

In addition, your statements are incorrect.

1. There was no Ottoman Empire by then

Just as there was no Third Reich at the end of WW 2- but there were still valid surrender documents.

2. Turkey had no domain in the relevant areas

MOST of the property that became Mandate Palestine was owned by individuals in Turkey- the people who lived there in general rented property from those owners.

3. Britain had no valid domain in the relevant areas.

Wrong again. By BOTH treaties, Britain was the Mandate Power.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,livelylass
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 03:23 PM

"We shall not recognize a Jewish state,"

Honest question, is it appropriate to designate a land mass as belonging to members of a specific single religion and/or race in exclusion of others today?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 03:21 PM

Meanwhile, Hamas said Friday Palestinians should liberate their land, not beg for recognition at the United Nations, firmly rejecting President Abbas' quest for statehood. Speaking hours before Abbas was due to ask formally that the UN recognize a Palestinian state, senior Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh said this would not bring independence.

"Our Palestinian people do not beg for a state. ...States are not built upon UN resolutions. States liberate their land and establish their entities," Haniyeh said.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 03:16 PM

1. There was no Ottoman Empire by then
2. Turkey had no domain in the relevant areas
3. Britain had no valid domain in the relevant areas.

No-one had rightful power to give away the lands of the people who were there.

What is so hard to understand about that?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 03:15 PM

As for the present attempt at anothe Palestinian state,




Friday afternoon, Abbas said he is adamant about not recognizing Israel as the Jewish state.

"They talk to us about the Jewish state, but I respond to them with a final answer: We shall not recognize a Jewish state," Abbas said in a meeting with some 200 senior representatives of the Palestinian community in the US, shortly before taking the podium and delivering a speech at the United Nations General Assembly.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 03:04 PM

McGrath,

There already exists a Palestinian Arab state, independent since 1928 or so- Transjordan ( now called Jordan). It was formed from 77+% of the Mandate Palestine territory to be the Arab homeland , since Great Britain did not think it could implement the Mandate terms that "nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

Of course, the rights and political status of Jews in any other country were also ignored, as the Arab homeland had a prohibition on Jewish property ownership or settlement.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 02:58 PM

Richard,

If you bother to read, you will see that the

The Treaty of Sèvres (10 August 1920) was the peace treaty between the Ottoman Empire and Allies at the end of World War I. The Treaty of Versailles was signed with Germany before this treaty to annul the German concessions including the economic rights and enterprises.
The treaty had four signatories for the Ottoman Empire: Rıza Tevfik, the grand vizier Damat Ferid Pasha, ambassador Hadi Pasha and the minister of education Reşid Halis who were endorsed by Sultan Mehmed VI.
Of the Principal Allied powers it excluded the United States. Russia was also excluded because it had negotiated the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk with the Ottoman Empire in 1918. In that treaty, at the insistence of the Grand Vizier Talat Pasha, the Ottoman Empire regained the lands Russia had captured in the Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878), specifically Ardahan, Kars, and Batumi. Sir George Dixon Grahame signed for Great Britain, Alexandre Millerand for France and Count Lelio Bonin Longare for Italy.

This is a valid treaty. Turkey did not accept it.Thus,

"The Treaty of Lausanne was a peace treaty signed in Lausanne, Switzerland on 24 July 1923, that settled the Anatolian and East Thracian parts of the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire.[1] The treaty of Lausanne was ratified by the Greek government on 11 February 1924, by the Turkish government on 31 March, and by the governments of Great Britain, Italy and Japan on 6 August. It was registered in the League of Nations Treaty Series on 5 September 1924.[2] The Treaty of Lausanne superseded the Treaty of Sèvres which was signed by representatives of the Ottoman Empire.

If the Turks did NOT have standing, the first treaty applies, If they DO have standing, the second applies. IN EITHER CASE, Mandate Palestine was declared to be the Jewish homeland,

"The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people"

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 02:50 PM

Bruce, by the dates you specify there was no Ottoman empire and Turkey had no domain at all in the affected territories. You can't give away what you don't own.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 02:46 PM

None of that is relevant to the immediate question of whether there are any grounds for refusing recognition of Palestine as a state.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 02:31 PM

McGrath,

My point is that the reasons presented here for Israel to go back to the pre-1967 border lines ( 1948 truce lines) are the same ones that I am using for stating the circa 1923 borders. Yet I have seen NOTHING PRESENTED to justify them- The statement that lands acquired by war must be returned seem only to apply to Israel giving up land, and NOT to going back to the last accepted border of circa 1923.

So if Arabs take land by war, it is OK, but if Jews try to recover it, it is a crime??

Israel has offered a Palestinian state , of Israeli land- and had if refused. The precondition the Israel has asked for is that it's existence be conceded- The one the Palestinians demand it that Israel go back to borders that were the result of Arab warfare. This whole attempt by the Palestinians is an effort to avoid having to negotiate with Israel over the borders.

In addition, the result of a Palestinian nation will be that that nation will be held to account for the actions of those in it's borders- and further rocket attacks, such have been going on for many years, will be acts of war and result in further military action against the Palestinians.

The present fate of the Palestinian people is due far more to the actions of the surrounding Arab nations, and their own choices, than due to Israel. The PLO has already stated that no Jews will be allowed in that future Palestinian state, yet I hear no comments on that.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 02:10 PM

Any chance of turning the discussion to the circumstances of 2011, and the question of whether there are any valid reasons to oppose Palestine having UN membership as a state?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 02:06 PM

Richard,

You might try reading and thinking about what I have posted, rather than going of on some rant of your own.

The treaties show a clear path of national responsibility from the Ottoman Empire through to the Government of Turkey. If YOU chose to invalidate those treaties, you have invalidated the legality of a number of nations. If you accept those nations, but NOT the Jewish Homeland, I have no choice but to state that you are anti-semetic ( as defined in modern usage) as shown by your own statements, at which point further discussion is pointless.


To all: I have YET to hear ANY reason why the 1948 Truce lines being promulgated as the borders of Israel have any (more) validity than those of the 1967 Truce lines. I have presented reason why the circa 1923 borders of the Jewish Homeland are more appropriate according to the reasoning that has been posted here by those supporting a Palestinian state, and have shown the the Arab Palestinian population has already received a portion of the Mandate Palestine in excess of the proportion of population at that time. I will have to presume that there is some measure of religious bigotry here, that a Jewish state is being treated in a manner far more harsh than any other.

If this is not the case, please show me some reason to think so. The comments posted here have not done so.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 01:53 PM

You might, BB, try reading and thinking about what I have said, rather than going of on some rant of your own.

By the dates you give, the "Ottoman Empire" did not exist. There was no effective government in its former possessions. Thus no treaty in its name or under its alleged title could create countries. Nor was there any way for the League of Nations or UN to derive a valid power to do so.

I am not addressing any other of the effects, actual or purported, of the papers you cite.

MtheGM - accordingly nothing validly created the right for Israel to exist within any borders.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 01:40 PM

Speaking of "The occupation of territory following a war is accepted as a temporary anomaly which needs to be rectified by the withdrawal of the occupiers"


Emir Faisal's brother, Abdullah, led a band of armed men north from the Hedjaz into Transjordan and threatened to attack Syria and vindicate the Hashemites' right to overlordship there. Samuel seized the opportunity to press the case for British control. He succeeded. In March 1921 the Colonial Secretary, Winston Churchill, visited the Middle East and endorsed an arrangement whereby Transjordan would be removed from the original territory of Palestine, with Abdullah as the emir under the authority of the High Commissioner, and with the condition that the Jewish National Home provisions of the (future) Palestine mandate would not apply there. Effectively, this removed about 78% of the original territory of Palestine and left about 22% where the application of the Balfour Declaration calling for a "Jewish" national home could be applied. Transjordan remained under the nominal auspices of the League of Nations and British administration, until its independence in 1928.[2]

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 01:38 PM

Since it is obvious that some here will not bother to look at anything that migh differ with their opinions, I will post notes on the treaties in question. The following are the ones that Richard has declared not valid, concerning WW 1

"The Treaty of Sèvres (10 August 1920) was the peace treaty between the Ottoman Empire and Allies at the end of World War I. The Treaty of Versailles was signed with Germany before this treaty to annul the German concessions including the economic rights and enterprises. Also, France, Great Britain and Italy signed a secret "Tripartite Agreement" at the same date.[1] The Tripartite Agreement confirmed Britain's oil and commercial concessions and turned the former German enterprises in the Ottoman Empire over to a Tripartite corporation. The open negotiations covered a period of more than fifteen months, beginning at the Paris Peace Conference. The negotiations continued at the Conference of London, and took definite shape only after the premiers′ meeting at the San Remo conference in April 1920. France, Italy, and Great Britain, however, had secretly begun the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire as early as 1915. The delay occurred because the powers could not come to an agreement which, in turn, hinged on the outcome of the Turkish national movement. The Treaty of Sèvres was annulled in the course of the Turkish War of Independence and the parties signed and ratified the superseding Treaty of Lausanne in 1923.
The representatives signed the treaty in an exhibition room at the famous porcelain factory[2] in Sèvres, France.[3]
The treaty had four signatories for the Ottoman Empire: Rıza Tevfik, the grand vizier Damat Ferid Pasha, ambassador Hadi Pasha and the minister of education Reşid Halis who were endorsed by Sultan Mehmed VI.
Of the Principal Allied powers it excluded the United States. Russia was also excluded because it had negotiated the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk with the Ottoman Empire in 1918. In that treaty, at the insistence of the Grand Vizier Talat Pasha, the Ottoman Empire regained the lands Russia had captured in the Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878), specifically Ardahan, Kars, and Batumi. Sir George Dixon Grahame signed for Great Britain, Alexandre Millerand for France and Count Lelio Bonin Longare for Italy.
Among the other Allied powers, Greece did not accept the borders as drawn and never ratified it.[4] Avetis Aharonian, the President of the Delegation of the Democratic Republic of Armenia, which also signed the Treaty of Batum on 4 June 1918, was a signatory of this treaty."

British Mandate of Iraq
The details as reflected to the treaty regarding the British Mandate of Iraq was completed on April 25, 1920, at the San Remo conference.
Oil concession in this region was given to the British-controlled Turkish Petroleum Company (TPC) which had held concessionary rights to the Mosul wilaya (province). With elimination of the Ottoman Empire with this treaty, British and Iraqi negotiators held acrimonious discussions over the new oil concession. The League of Nations vote on the disposition of Mosul, and the Iraqis feared that, without British support, Iraq would lose the area. In March 1925, the TPC renamed to the Iraq Petroleum Company (IPC), was granted a full and complete concession for a period of 75 years.
[edit]British Mandate for Palestine
The three principles of the British Balfour Declaration regarding Palestine were adopted in the Treaty of Sèvres:
ARTICLE 95.
The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
Palestine officially fell under the British Mandate.
[edit]French Mandate of Lebanon
The mandate settled to France at the San Remo Conference. Comprising the region between the Euphrates river and the Syrian desert on the east, and the Mediterranean sea on the west, and extending from the Alma Dagh Mountains on the south to Egypt on the south; Area of territory about 60,000 sq mi (160,000 km2) with a population of about 3,000,000. Lebanon and an enlarged Syria, which were later assigned again under League of Nations Mandate. The region was divided under the French into four governments as follows: Government of Aleppo from the Euphrates region to the Mediterranean; Great Lebanon extending from Tripoli to Palestine; Damascus, including Damascus, Hama, Hems, and the Hauran; and the country of Mount Arisarieh.
[edit]French Mandate of Syria
Faisal ibn Husayn, who had been proclaimed king of Syria by a Syrian national congress in Damascus in March 1920, was ejected by the French in July of the same year.
[edit]

The San Remo[1] Conference was an international meeting of the post-World War I Allied Supreme Council, held in Sanremo, Italy, from 19 to 26 April 1920. It was attended by the four Principal Allied Powers of World War I who were represented by the prime ministers of Britain (David Lloyd George), France (Alexandre Millerand) and Italy (Francesco Nitti) and by Japan's Ambassador K. Matsui.
It determined the allocation of Class "A" League of Nations mandates for administration of the former Ottoman-ruled lands of the Middle East.
The precise boundaries of all territories were left unspecified, to "be determined by the Principal Allied Powers"[2] and were not finalized until four years later. The conference's decisions were embodied in the stillborn Treaty of Sèvres (Section VII, Art 94-97). As Turkey rejected this treaty, the conference's decisions were only finally confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations on 24 July 1922, and when Turkey accepted the terms of the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne.

"The Treaty of Lausanne was a peace treaty signed in Lausanne, Switzerland on 24 July 1923, that settled the Anatolian and East Thracian parts of the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire.[1] The treaty of Lausanne was ratified by the Greek government on 11 February 1924, by the Turkish government on 31 March, and by the governments of Great Britain, Italy and Japan on 6 August. It was registered in the League of Nations Treaty Series on 5 September 1924.[2] The Treaty of Lausanne superseded the Treaty of Sèvres which was signed by representatives of the Ottoman Empire.
The treaty was the consequence of the Turkish War of Independence between the Allies of World War I and the Ankara-based Grand National Assembly of Turkey (Turkish national movement) led by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. The treaty also led to the international recognition of the sovereignty of the new Republic of Turkey as the successor state of the defunct Ottoman Empire.[1]"

"The treaty delimited the boundaries of Greece, Bulgaria, and Turkey; formally ceded all Turkish claims on the Dodecanese Islands (Article 15); Cyprus (Article 20); Egypt and Sudan (Article 17); Syria and Iraq (Article 3); and (along with the Treaty of Ankara) settled the boundaries of the latter two nations.[1]
The territories to the south of Syria and Iraq on the Arabian Peninsula which still remained under Turkish control when the Armistice of Mudros was signed on 30 October 1918 were not explicitly identified in the text of the treaty. However, the definition of Turkey's southern border in Article 3 also meant that Turkey officially ceded them. These territories included Yemen, Asir and parts of Hejaz like the city of Medina. They were held by Turkish forces until 23 January 1919.[9][10]
Turkey officially ceded Adakale Island in River Danube to Romania with Articles 25 and 26 of the Treaty of Lausanne; by formally recognizing the related provisions in the Treaty of Trianon of 1920.[1][8]
Turkey also renounced its privileges in Libya which were defined by Article 10 of the Treaty of Ouchy in 1912 (per Article 22 of the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923.)[1]
[edit]"

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 12:35 PM

McGrath,

"The occupation of territory following a war is accepted as a temporary anomaly which needs to be rectified by the withdrawal of the occupiers"

Thus the 1948 truce lines cannot be the borders of israel.

The LAST accepted by the Arab nations borders are those of the Mandate Palestine Jewish Homeland ( after removal of 77% of the Mandate by the Mandate Power ( Great Britain) to become the Arab Homeland of Transjordan) from 1923.

Do you agree that THOSE borders are what should be imposed upon Israel???

Yes or No?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 12:28 PM

From: Richard Bridge
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 11:23 AM

Turkey, by then, had no valid power over the rest of what had been the Ottoman Empire.

---------------



So YOU have stated that WW 1 has NEVER ended???

Richard has now stated that the treaty ending WW 1 and creating Lebanon, Syria, the borders of Turkey, Israel and Jordan et al is not valid.


Let me see. You have stated that the UN has no jurisdiction, that the treaties ending WW 1 are not valid, but you want to impose the 1948 truce lines as borders for Israel FOR WHAT REASON?????

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Mrrzy
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 12:06 PM

He he he Jon Stewart suggested everyone'd all get along better if they changed the spelling to Palistein... he he he not a bad idea!

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 11:39 AM

So what, Richard? Still can't see what your point relates to, unless it be to the query raised above about "neighbouring states' 'mandate' being required" [07.43. AM], which I have comprehensively demolished. If not that, then what are you on about in these last few gnomic utterances about "competent authority"?

A rational and comprehensible answer, please.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 11:23 AM

Turkey, by then, had no valid power over the rest of what had been the Ottoman Empire.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 11:01 AM

"There is little to distinguish between the behaviour of Israel towards Gazan non-combatants and that of the SS to say, the response to the assassination of Hiedrich by decimating Lidice." - Jim Carroll

I would say that there was a great deal of difference.

So Lidice was "decimated" was it?

Here is what DID befall the population of that small village:

"On 10th June 1942, members of the German Army field police and SD (Sicherheitsdienst) surrounded the village of Lidice, blocking all avenues of escape.

All men of the village were rounded up and taken to the farmstead of the Horák family on the edge of the village. Mattresses were taken from neighbouring houses where they were stood up against the wall of the Horáks' barn. Shooting of the men commenced at about 7 a.m. At first the men were shot in groups of five, but Böhme thought the executions were proceeding too slowly and ordered that ten men be shot at a time. The dead were left lying where they fell. This continued until the afternoon hours when there were 173 dead.

The next day, seven women, along with nineteen men who had been working in a mine, were sent to Prague, where they were also shot.

All the women and children of the village were taken first to Lidice village school. They were then taken to the nearby town of Kladno where they were detained in the grammar school for three days. The children were separated from their mothers.

Four women were pregnant and were sent to the same hospital where Heydrich died. They were given abortions and then sent to different concentration camps. One hundred and eighty-four women of Lidice were loaded on trucks on June 12, 1942, driven to Kladno railway station and forced into a special passenger train guarded by a large escort. In the morning of June 14, 1942 the train halted on a railway siding at the concentration camp at Ravensbrück. On their arrival the Lidice women were first isolated in a special block. The women were involved in leather processing, road building, textile and ammunition factories. Lack of hygiene, epidemics and contagious diseases spread and took most of the women. Some went mad and others were murdered.

Eighty-eight Lidice children were transported to the area of the former textile factory in Gneisenau Street in £ódŸ. Their arrival was announced by a telegram from Horst Böhme's Prague office which ended with, the children are only bringing what they wear. No special care is desirable. The care was minimal. They suffered from a lack of hygiene and from illnesses. Under commands from the camp management, no medical care was given to the children. Shortly after their arrival in £ódŸ, officials from the Central Race and Settlement branch chose seven children at random for Germanisation.

The furor over Lidice caused some hesitation over the fate of the remaining children, but in late June Adolf Eichmann ordered the massacre of the remainder of the children. On July 2, 1942 all of the remaining 81 Lidice children were handed over to the £ódŸ Gestapo office, who in turn had them transported to the extermination camp at Che³mno 70 kilometres away, where they were gassed to death in Magirus gas vans. It is almost certain they were killed on the day of their arrival. Out of the 105 Lidice children, 82 died in Che³mno, six died in the German Lebensborn orphanages and 17 returned home."

So a bit worse than decimation, the village was also completely razed to the ground - utterly levelled. All-in-all including the populations of other villages some 1,300 people died because of Heydrich's assassination. No such parallel exists in anything connected with Gaza, where according to the UN Hamas terrorists deliberately used the civilian population as "human shields".

WP a chemical weapon?? Hardly, but that would be a simple matter of looking it up, it certainly is not listed as a chemical weapon, but is mentioned under a "Conventional Weapon Protocol". Such facts however will not sit well with Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 10:25 AM

From: Richard Bridge
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 09:24 AM

I see no such competent authority. That's the point.


Are you now saying that the treaty ending WW 1 , and signed by Turkey as the successor state to the Ottoman Empire , which established the multiple Mandates that became Lebanon, Syria, Israel and Jordan, et al is NOT valid???

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 09:41 AM

Not sure what you mean, Richard. You said above that US, USSR, UN had "no warrant from the lands in the area" I pointed out that, yes they did: those lands had recognised ~ i.e. given their 'warrant' to ~ the authority of the UN, including its veto-powered members US & USSR, to allocate the territories, by their acceptance of membership of the organisation and their voluntary participation in its procedures. I reiterate that, when a properly held vote went against them, they did not resign their membership, but attempted to negate its effects by force of arms ~~ for which, I repeat, I cannot imagine why the organisation did not end their membership forthwith.

What other 'competent authority' do you want, for heaven's sake. You are making yourself look ridiculous with this frivolous, pertinacious disingenuousness.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 09:24 AM

I see no such competent authority. That's the point.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 09:03 AM

Right of conquest.
The Golan Heights were used to fire shells into Israel and to launch attacks.
It is purely defensive to take and hold such a position at least until guarantees are in place.

Israel's borders were crossed by invading neighbours so it pushed them back to defensible boundaries.
Defensive.
It did not keep all the land it conquered. It had all the Sinai and beyond Sharm el Sheik.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 09:02 AM

And the recognition of Palestine as a state would probably help in that - as it appears most Israelis accept, though their government does not.

("No further illegitimate incursions" would I assume include fresh settlements on occupied territory I take it. That would be an excellent thing - and of course in line with the stated US position, for what it's worth.)

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 08:51 AM

Perhaps not, McGrath: I agree it is a dubious concept. But it can only, surely, be rectified by withdrawal, as you say, after security considerations have been taken into account, and an enforceable guarantee of no further illegitimate incursions delivered; which has manifestly not been the case since the hostilities of 1948 to which my post employing this phrase clearly referred.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 08:48 AM

So, the illegal occupation of the Jewish Homeland as determined by the LAST treaty the the Arabs agreed to (Since they deny the validity of the UN Partition) in 1948 means that the ORIGINAL MANDATE PALESTINE Jewish Homeland boundries, as stated in 1923 "needs to be rectified by the withdrawal of the occupiers."

So YOU are now stating that the Present state of Israel, ( successor state to the Jewish Homeland portion of Mandate Pletine ) is entitled to the ENTIRE WEST BANK????


Or are you saying that the treaty establishing Mandate Palestine is invalid, so that Lebanon, Syria, et al are illegal states?

Or is it that ONLY the JEWISH state is illegal?


Just want to find out which it is...

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 08:37 AM

"Right of conquest" is no right, and has no legal meaning. That is as true in the case of nations as it is of private citizens. "Finders keepers, losers weepers" is the law of the playground - but it's against the school rules and the criminal law.
.................................

The occupation of territory following a war is accepted as a temporary anomaly which needs to be rectified by the withdrawal of the occupiers. The question is how can this be achieved, and whether in 5this case the recognition of Palestine as a country by the United Nations would help or hinder in this process.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 08:28 AM

"Following your logic, Richard, the Israelis have as much or as little right to a state in the eastern land of the Mediterranean as do the Europeans in North America."


Or Anglo-Saxons any cliam to England, which they stole from the Celts, who stole it from the Beaker peoples...


Richard,

A good summary of the history, EXCEPT you ignore the fact that the Mandate Plestine territory included ALL of what is now Jordan- and in 1923 that 77% of the territroy was split off as the PALESTINIAN ARAB HOMELAND, with Jews NOT allowed, in order to " establish a Jewish national home that did not prejudice the civil and religious rights of the Arab majority". The remaining 23% was declared to be the Jewish Homeland, but there were no restrictions on non-Jews living there or owning property, as in the Arab Homeland of Transjordan.

So there has been an Arab Palestinian state since 1923.

Please check the peace treaty between Jordan and Israel, and see that the borders that Jordan acknowledges put the ENTIRE West bank in Israel (as per the 1923 division). Israel has been offering to give up land for peace, and yet is still being attacked daily.

IF the Palestinians are declared a state, then the rocket firings from Gaza will be acts of war against another nation (Israel) and ANY acts by Israel will continue to be justified , up to and including "razing of infrastructure in Gaza or the Lebanon. " Or are YOU declaring that the bombing of Germany during WW !! was illegal? THERE HAS BEEN NO PEACE TREATY between Israel and the nations it has attacked IN RESPONSE TO BEING ATTACKED FROM.

Are YOU saying that ONLY Jews are not allowed to attack in response to being attacked????

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 08:19 AM

Your arguments remain perverse and frivolous, Richard, whatever their motivation, which I am happy to accept is in no way racially based. The opposition of "those in the area" lost all standing when they were outvoted in and by the competently authoritative body of which they themselves had membership. There is not the least reason why any "mandate" from those "in the area", apart from their votes in that body, should have been required for the resolution's implementation, or why they should have had any specific say in the matter. They accepted the UN's authority by the fact of their membership of it, and should have abided by its decision rather than attempting, unsuccessfully, to negate or obviate it by force of arms. Indeed, why the UN did not expel them for such a response to one of its legitimate decisions, in which they had full opportunity to make their opinions known and cast their votes, seems to me to be the question that needs answering. And indeed, they would have done well to accept it, as the borders of the state declared in May 1948 extended no further than those resolved by the UN. The subsequent expansion of territory was brought about by successful defence of their very existence, and legitimate conquest of those who attempted to invade what had been declared their sovereign territory, and remaining, by right of conquest and the absolute and essential considerations of security, in the territory thus gained.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 07:43 AM

Still veering away from the issue, I see... The rights and wrongs of the ways in which the various people carry on their conflict is interesting, but not immediately relevant. The same goes for the history of how this nightmarish situation came about.

But neither of those bear too much relevance to the question of whether there are any valid reasons why Palestine, which is already recognised as a country (albeit occupied) by two-thirds of the globe, should not have this recognition formally accepted by the United Nations.

The fact that the Israeli government has chosen to oppose this recognition, and that, with an election looming, Barack Obama has elected to fall dutifully into line, should not obscure the fact that many Jewish Israelis have no particular objection. "A recent poll conducted by the Hebrew University found that 70% of Israelis believe that if the UN votes in favour of a Palestinian state, Israel should accept the decision...More than 80 prominent Israeli intellectuals gathered outside Independence Hall on Thursday. They were led by author Sefi Rachlevski, to declare their support for a Palestinian state along the 1967 borders. (That comes from here - Israelis largely support calls for Palestinian state, say protesters

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 07:43 AM

If that is the whole of the claim, MtheGM, it appears to be wholly illegitimate as neither the US, nor the USSR, nor the UN had any mandate from those of the area. For most of my adult life most of my law partners have been Jewish, so why should I be an antisemite?

Bobad - indeed I am enthused by at least part of that argument. When are the white settlers of the USA moving out and being taken to international courts for their genocide?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: bobad
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 07:29 AM

Following your logic, Richard, the Israelis have as much or as little right to a state in the eastern land of the Mediterranean as do the Europeans in North America.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 07:15 AM

It most certainly IS a chemical Richard, as is water and salt.
Having a salt pot thrown at you is not best described as a chemical attack, and a water pistol is not covered by any chemical weapons treaty.