David, I see that you just won't let things go, you are blinded in your myopic view of history and understanding of what is really happening on the ground.

You stated that Rabin, as part of his vision, and one supported by Peres and Netanyahu, had stated "At the same time, we also promise that the non-Jewish citizens of Israel -- Muslim, Christian, Druze and others -- will enjoy full personal, religious and civil rights, like those of any Israeli citizen. Judaism and racism are diametrically opposed."

Well that is interesting considering these facts:

Netanyahu and his cronies are the most overt and blatant racists in modern Jewish history.

They have been working on a disgustingly discriminatory piece of legislation, one which will give Israelis who have served in the army a whole raft of extra rights in land and housing, employment, salaries, and the provision of public and private services.

How ironic that Israel's one and a half million Palestinian's are excluded from military service.

This legislation will therefore only benefit Jews.

If, as Rabin envisioned, Judaism and racism are diametrically opposed, I fail to see how you can stand on your soap-box and pontificate about Clinton, when Netanyahu and his supporters, including you obviously, support such a pathetic and immoral stance against Arabs living in Israel.

If it left the Hasbarist troll speechless it would be money well spent.

Politicians of most countries are smart if they receive money while in office they will be found to be corrupt BUT if the people they have helped give them directorships or highly paid speaking engagements etc after they have left office it is okay.

$500,000 for 45 minutes sounds like a pay off.

Don't forget Hillary Clinton was secretary of state for a long time recently.

As the Singer sings his fraudulent song,

He never admits to Israeli wrong.

He ever gilds the Jewish lily,

Even when he's clearly silly.

He cannot see his homeland's plight,

One that fills the world with fright.

Singer proves beyond all doubt,

That religion is a dead-end route!

#Geoff of Perth

1. Are you also so het up about Australian Ex Servicemen receiving benefits that other sections of Australian society do not receive?

http://www.dva.gov.au/benefitsAndServices/Pages/index.aspx

2. Are you aware that some Arabs do indeed serve in the Israeli military?

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/number-of-israeli-arab-idf-recruits-dramatically-increases-in-2008-1.255275

Go take your Jew hatred and spread it elsewhere.

#Emperor Julian

As usual you have no comment to make - only a personal attack on me.

#Phillip S

Who made the payoff and what was it for?

Put up or shut up.

Are you lumping all ex-politicians who go on speaking tours and earn huge speakers' fees as indulging in this conduct?

#David G

Pity you don't put your poetic skills towards addressing the specific matters in my article with which you disagree - or indeed aren't there any?

The lily is not being gilded by me.

If my facts or conclusions are wrong - be man enough to be prepared to say why and justify your viewpoint.

Don't hide between sneer and innuendo from your position of anonymity.

David states:

#Geoff of Perth

1. Are you also so het up about Australian Ex Servicemen receiving benefits that other sections of Australian society do not receive?

http://www.dva.gov.au/benefitsAndServices/Pages/index.aspx

Well David as an actual Ex Serviceman I receive no benefits to the exception of other sections of Australian society.

So try again.

The hole is getting deeper, again...

#To Geoff of Perth

Aren't you a lucky chappy not having to call on the benefits available to ex-servicemen in Australia.

Tens of thousands of other ex servicemen are not so fortunate. Do you castigate Australia for providing such benefits that are not available to other segments of Australian society?

Check the following:

http://www.dva.gov.au/aboutDVA/Statistics/Documents/TpopMar2013.pdf

Is Israel somehow different from all the other countries in the world who provide similar benefits for their ex servicemen ? Please explain why you have this opinion.

I note you have chosen to ignore my claim that some Arabs do in fact serve in the Israeli military. Again - your Jew hatred is there for all to see.

The hole is certainly getting deeper - for you.

I notice the way the Hasbarist troll hides behind the old "Jew hatred" libel. Someone acts criminally. Someone points it out. If the criminal is a goy he can be defended only by showing he has acted properly. But if he's a Jew the racist can cry "anti-Semitism" or "Jew-hatred". To these racists Jews aren't like us goyim. Being Jews they can commit crimes without being criminal, and to fail to concede that Jews are “special” is "Jew-hatred". In this way, to racists like Mr Singer, Jews are not bound by standards normally expected for lesser breeds.

Sorry, but no ethnic group is "special" and free from the moral requirements applying to the rest of us. To claim that any ethnic group whatever is "special" is racist, and to claim that one's own ethnic group is "special" is contemptible, especially when libellously described as "hatred" those who reject the false "special" status. Several correspondents here have not conceded that Jews are more special than lesser breeds, and for this have been labelled (libelled) by the troll as Jew-haters. Jews have no more right to invade others' land and reward collaborators who join the occupying army than anyone else. They merit condemnation for this just as Germans and Japs did for the same offence.

#Emperor Julian

You state:

"Jews have no more right to invade others' land and reward collaborators who join the occupying army than anyone else. They merit condemnation for this just as Germans and Japs did for the same offence."

Do you equally condemn successive Australian Governments for providing benefits to Australian servicemen who served during such wars as World War 2 or in Vietnam, Iraq, East Timor and Afghanistan?

What about every other country in the world that has acted as Australian Governments have in compensating those who fought for them - Do you condemn them?

Will you be lobbying Australian political parties to remove this discriminatory policy if they are elected in September?

Have you ever written a letter to anyone condemning Australia adopting the same policy as Israel - which Geoff of Perth describes in these terms - " a disgustingly discriminatory piece of legislation, one which will give Israelis who have served in the army a whole raft of extra rights in land and housing, employment, salaries, and the provision of public and private services."

Glad at least to see you confirm what Geoff of Perth has not been man enough to admit - that Arabs do serve in Israel's military.

David, happy to admit that Arabs do serve in the Israeli military, it's just the number of them, a minute proportion almost not worth mentioning.

The 'benefits' ex servicemen and women get in Israel is just so vastly different to what is on offer in other countries, especially when we start talking about land and housing.

If we are going to compare something, lets use apples against apples and not apples against watermelon.

#To Geoff of Perth

The hole certainly is getting deeper for you Geoff.

Now you sneeringly are forced to admit that Israeli Arabs serve in the Israeli military - but that it is a "minute proportion."

A minute proportion of what? The total number of Israeli Arabs men women and children - 1.5 million according to you - OR the total number of Israeli Arabs (male and female)who are medically fit and eligible to apply and want to join the army because it is their army that is defending them and their families too and are not cowered by being called "collaborators" as so demeaningly described by Emperor Julian or discouraged from joining by Israeli Arab members of the Israeli Parliament or frightened at the thought of being strung up like two "collaborators" in Gaza this week or by suffering the same fate as several West Bank Arabs who committed the heinous crime of selling land to Jews?

Do you even know how many Arabs are in Israel's military? If you do - why did you say there were none.

Your latest statement is unbelievable:

" The 'benefits' ex servicemen and women get in Israel is just so vastly different to what is on offer in other countries, especially when we start talking about land and housing."

How do you know what those benefits are when you yourself state - "
"They have been working on a disgustingly discriminatory piece of legislation"

Why don't you fill us in with the details of that legislation and tell us how it is so 'vastly different' from what we have in Australia.

You are making the claims - justify them.

The stench of Jew-hatred seems to be getting ever stronger with each response that you make to try and justify your ongoing misleading and deceptive statements.

David

This is in answer to the above article which you published on another site. That site wouldnt publish my answer so here it is.

Just to recap:

I said:

It didnt lie in your mouth to criticize Peres and others for the failure of the 2 state solution as you have always opposed it anyhow.

I then said - in passing - that I dont want to debate this again but as, I’ve said before, your reasoning re Art80/Mandate etc is plain wrong; it is rejected by every recognised legal expert not to mention every western government

You then said:

Please advise any recognized legal expert or any western government who has rejected the art80/Mandate argument and provide the link to their opinion.

Here is my response:

On the Art 80/mandate point, here is a link to an article by Professor Nathaniel Berman of Brown University rejecting the argument
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/san-remo-in-shilo-the-settlements-and-legal-history/

This is what the US had to say about the Levy Report when it came out. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4253423,00.html

I am not sure other countries bothered to issue formal statements but most governments do not of course consider the settlements to be legal anyway, a view that would not be open to them if the Art80/Mandate position had credibility.

Similarly if someone like James Crawford SC and the entire bench of the ICJ regard the settlements as illegal, it is reasonably safe to assume that they take the same view regarding the Art80/Mandate position. Julius Stone's writings on this issue go back to the 1970s and the Mandate is more than 90 years old. It may have escaped their attention but I wouldn’t bet on it.

The writers you quote have been criticised for their bias. In particular they fail to balance their views against the right of pals to self determination. You can find Professor Ben Saul and Andrew Dahdal's academic papers on line.

Please however refer me to any statements by US/UK or other western governments that you have been able to find supporting the Levy report or the Art80/Mandate position.

Ben

#Ben DR

You have now produced just one opinion by Professor Berman in which there is no mention of article 80 - making it clear to me that he has not considered it - especially given this statement by him:

"The (Levy)Commission’s report operates in something of a parallel legal-historical universe, one in which legal evolution stopped sometime in the 1920s and in which the majority of international lawyers writing after that era simply do not exist."

The Levy Report had this to say about article 80:

"To complete the picture, we'll add that with the establishment of the United Nations in 1945, the principle of recognizing the validity of existing rights of states acquired under various mandates, including of course the rights of Jews to settle in the Land of Israel by virtue of the above documents, was determined in article 80 of its charter:

"Except as may be agreed upon in individual trusteeship agreements...nothing in this Chapter shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties."

Professor Berman - like so many others - overlooks article 80 and what happened in 1945.

I hoped you could give me an opinion specifically rejecting the article 80/ Mandate argument as I have yet to see one and would be interested to learn on what basis the argument is rejected .

One point Professor Berman makes about the Mandate is indeed very important:

"... the Mandate instrument granting Palestine to British rule, obliging the British to pursue the goals of establishing a “national home for the Jewish people,” and encouraging “close settlement by Jews on the land,” was a clearly legally binding international treaty."

The Arabs have never accepted the legal binding nature of the Mandate and the promises made to the Jewish people in that document.

Until they do - and understand it is still in force by virtue of Article 80 - the conflict is set to continue.

David,

I am sick of pushing against a piece of string, your overt discrimination is blatant.

I acknowledge that you are now nit-picking, do I really need to give you a percentage of Arabs working in the Israeli military to justify my claims the Israeli government policy vis serving and ex-serving members of the military is 100% biased toward the Jewish element that are, or have served in the Israeli military.......I think not.

As to your "One point Professor Berman makes about the Mandate is indeed very important:

"... the Mandate instrument granting Palestine to British rule, obliging the British to pursue the goals of establishing a “national home for the Jewish people,” and encouraging “close settlement by Jews on the land,” was a clearly legally binding international treaty."

The Arabs have never accepted the legal binding nature of the Mandate and the promises made to the Jewish people in that document.

Until they do - and understand it is still in force by virtue of Article 80 - the conflict is set to continue."

Good God man this is the underlying argument, built on a bale of straw, that you continue to mandate.

Did anyone actually ask the poor old Arab at the time what he wanted, no I didn't think so!

Zionists, like yourself, are now using the tried and true method of meddlesome crap to push a political agenda, fully supported and mandated by the US-Israeli politik, Jewish owned and operated MSM and think tanks and the like to bend truth and human rights, overtly in the current geo-political environment to destroy Syria, Jordan and eventually Iran, for what purpose, water and the right as stated by too many Zionists to count, to ensure the growth and so-called right of a 'Jewish' nation in a broadly Arab world.

David, get a grip and stop pontificating with semantics, you are becoming a bore on OLO

By the way, I don't hate any Jewish people, only the fascist Zionists like yourself trying too hard to re-write history.

David

The reason you cannot find anything in the Berman article challenging the Mandate argument is that I don't think you understand it very well. Art 80 is not the issue. The issue is whether the rights under the Mandate expired or not. Berman says:

"Turning to the Rostow-inspired argument that the Mandate’s provisions for “close settlement” have survived the demise of the League of Nations, the end of the Mandate system, and the establishment of the State of Israel: this argument ignores, in the first place, the venerable legal doctrine that a change in circumstances – known to international lawyers as “rebus sic stantibus,” can nullify a treaty provision."

Berman gives an example of one fundamental change. Another is the fact that the whole rationale for the Mandate collapsed when the Single state contemplated under the Mandate became an impossibility and the UN voted in favor of Partition. The fact the Arabs rejected Partition is irrelevant.

The main reason the Mandate argument is flawed is that it fails to acknowledge the Pals right to self determination. If Rostow is correct, then we have an indigenous population losing their right to self determination as a result of agreements to which they were never party. That would be a cruel injustice which International Law would never countenance. Julius Stone was conscious of this problem and sought to argue that the Pals never had rights to self determination in first place but his views on this are now thoroughly rejected. See academic papers by Prof Ben Saul and Andrew Dahdal.

Berman quotes Woodrow Wilson in 1918 who puts is succinctly: “peoples and provinces are not to be bartered about from sovereignty to sovereignty as if they were mere chattels and pawns in a game.”

I am still waiting for you to refer me to statements from any western governments approving the views in the Levy report and the Mandate argument.

To Ben DR

With respect - you claimed:

"I’ve said before, your reasoning re Art80/Mandate etc is plain wrong; it is rejected by every recognised legal expert not to mention every western government"

My response:

"Please advise any recognized legal expert or any western government who has rejected the art80/Mandate argument and provide the link to their opinion."

Your response - one legal expert - Professor Berman

Now having done that you ask me:

"Please however refer me to any statements by US/UK or other western governments that you have been able to find supporting the Levy report or the Art80/Mandate position."

I never alleged there were any. You alleged it was rejected by every western Government and have produced none.

This kind of intellectual dishonesty is nauseating and typical of the disinformation and propaganda that seeks to deceive and misrepresent and to refuse to support statements made with no substance when they are challenged.

As to your quote from Berman - of course a change of circumstances -the doctrine of “rebus sic stantibus,” - can nullify a treaty provision.

That is precisely why article 80 was inserted in the UN Charter. If it was not - then Berman's argument could have been made that the Mandate died with the demise of the League of Nations.

The Mandate for Palestine was only one of several Mandates then in force.

Article 80 was inserted to specifically preserve the rights existing under those Mandates.

Berman's conclusion that the Mandate was nullified by later changed circumstances has clearly been reached without any consideration of article 80.

That is why I still continue to ask you to provide me with the opinions of "every recognized legal expert" that dismiss the article 80/Mandate argument.

I am more than happy to review my opinion should you be able to produce the opinions you claim do exist.

One further matter - it would help if you were to give your full name and advise whether you are lawyer.

#To Geoff of Perth

Calling an internationally legally binding treaty such as the Mandate for Palestine a "bale of straw" indicates your obvious inability to accept what the international community unanimously decided and your refusal to accept the rule of law.

You are entitled to do so - as have the Arabs who have deemed the Mandate null and void as well as everything of a legal consequence flowing from the Mandate - namely the right of the Jews to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in Palestine.

This view has not and will not resolve the conflict. 90 years of Arab rejectionism of the Mandate is pretty good evidence to support my claim.

Calling me a "racist Zionist" is another good indicator of your inability to heed the message and exposes yourself as possessing a vicious and spiteful Jew-hating tongue.

Again you don't have to like Jews - that is your choice. You merely are one of hundreds of millions sharing the same view going way back into history. Just be frank and honest. Stand tall and be proud of your racist and evil credentials.

As that hole you are digging for yourself gets deeper Geoff - maybe you will disappear from sight. In one way that would be a pity. Exposing people like you to public view indicates that intolerance and racial vilification is alive and kicking in Perth today.

Before the hole swallows you - please justify your following statement which you appear to be deliberately avoiding:

"The 'benefits' ex servicemen and women get in Israel is just so vastly different to what is on offer in other countries, especially when we start talking about land and housing."

My response to you claim was:

"How do you know what those benefits are when you yourself state - "
"They have been working on a disgustingly discriminatory piece of legislation"

Why don't you fill us in with the details of that legislation and tell us how it is so 'vastly different' from what we have in Australia.

You are making the claims - justify them."

Justify them Geoff

David

Nowhere in Rostow's opinion (New Republic article 23 April 1990) does he address the rebus sic stantibus principle. Nor does Levy. In fact Levy is so devoid of legal reasoning on Article 80 that is difficult to know what they are saying about it.

The problem with Art 80 is that it only assists if there are rights to transfer. To put it in simple terms, if a lease comes to an end through a fundamental change, the deed of assignment in respect of the lease, assigns precisely nothing.

Are you saying that Article 80, a mere assigning or transitional provision, freezes for all time rights under the Mandate which came to an end as a result of a change ? Please refer me to an argument which even remotely supports that absurd proposition. Not even Rostow said this.

Whatever Rostow's argument, it cannot be used to defeat legitimate rights to self determination. I have referred you to Prof Ben Saul's paper and the paper by Andrew Dahdal on this but you seem to want to side step this issue.

Please don’t accuse me of propaganda. I am stating the legal principles not propaganda.

You say I have produced nothing to show that Levy was rejected by every western Government but in the same breath you admit that none of them have accepted it. You also know perfectly well that they regard the settlements as illegal, a view not open to them if agree with the Levy report. So how dare you accuse me of intellectual dishonesty.

Actually I gave you a link to what the US has said and I believe that Hillary Clinton rejected it in even stronger terms.

And yes, I am a lawyer, but I don’t need to give you my name. I don’t care to be harassed privately by either by you or some of the very unpleasant sounding people on the J Wire website. I also sadly know what happens if members of our community don't "tow the party line" (yes am Jewish and proud of it)

#TO Ben DR - Part 1

Spoken like a true lawyer.

Having made a claim that the article 80/Mandate argument has been rejected by every international expert - and having failed to produce even one such opinion - you now seek to discredit the opinions of those experts I have named to expose the falsity of your claim.

You state:

"Nowhere in Rostow's opinion (New Republic article 23 April 1990) does he address the rebus sic stantibus principle."

He didn't have to - because it was irrelevant given article 80 of the UN Charter.

You further state:

" Nor does Levy. In fact Levy is so devoid of legal reasoning on Article 80 that is difficult to know what they are saying about it."

This is what the Levy Report said:

"In August 1922 the League of Nations approved the Mandate which was given to Britain, and thus the Jewish people's right to settle in the Land of Israel, their historic homeland, and to establish their state there, was recognized in international law.

To complete the picture, we'll add that with the establishment of the United Nations in 1945, the principle of recognizing the validity of existing rights of states acquired under various mandates, including of course the rights of Jews to settle in the Land of Israel by virtue of the above documents, was determined in article 80 of its charter:

Except as may be agreed upon in individual trusteeship agreements...nothing in this Chapter shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties."

Seems a pretty definitive statement of fact making it clear the Jewish rights under the Mandate were preserved as a result.

What do you find so difficult to understand?

#To Ben DR - Part 2

You then state:

"Are you saying that Article 80, a mere assigning or transitional provision, freezes for all time rights under the Mandate which came to an end as a result of a change ? Please refer me to an argument which even remotely supports that absurd proposition. Not even Rostow said this."

No I am not saying Jewish rights are frozen "for all time". But until article 80 is taken out of the UN Charter those rights are preserved.
Your "absurd proposition" comes out of your own mouth and is a poor attempt to discredit the article 80/Mandate argument.

You then state:

"Whatever Rostow's argument, it cannot be used to defeat legitimate rights to self determination. I have referred you to Prof Ben Saul's paper and the paper by Andrew Dahdal on this but you seem to want to side step this issue.

Please don’t accuse me of propaganda. I am stating the legal principles not propaganda."

Please give me the links to these articles. I hope they deal with the article 80/Mandate argument.

As even your expert Berman said - the Mandate was an internationally binding legal treaty - which I claim has been preserved by Article 80 to this day.

Legal rights to self determination for the Arabs was granted in 99.99% of the captured Ottoman territories proposed for Jewish and Arab self-determination as a result of the Mandates for Mesopotamia and Syria and Lebanon.

What "legitimate rights to self determination" are you (and indeed Saul and Dahdal) referring to?

You then state:

"You say I have produced nothing to show that Levy was rejected by every western Government but in the same breath you admit that none of them have accepted it."

Where did I say this?

You are being intellectually dishonest in refusing to acknowledge that your original claim - "I’ve said before, your reasoning re Art80/Mandate etc is plain wrong; it is rejected by every recognised legal expert not to mention every western government" - has any substance or validity.

Put up or shut up.

We have two Jewish lawyers arguing on a thread about Palestine.

Sublime or ridiculous?

Your choice.

I am not, repeat not a lawyer and I can see right through David's argument, even without my glasses on.

As to justify, You put up the argument David, I commented, this is not a scientific journal with a bunch of references!

You know exactly what legislation I am talking about, read it and comment when you have the backbone to support any argument that can counter it!

More Zionistic hatred is evident from your posts against the good Dr as espoused by you above.

Pathetic.

David

Part 1

You say I have failed to produce "one opinion" rejecting the Art80/Mandate argument. Can you not read the Berman article ?

How could the many legal experts who have rejected the Levy report have come to that conclusion without rejecting the Art80/Mandate argument ? Try google the views of Prof Kretzmer (Emeritus International Law Hebrew University Jerusalem) and Prof Aeyal Gross (Tel-Aviv University) on Haaretz.

You can find Prof Scobbie's article re Levy on the EJIL website where he says: "Commentators have relied on the Mandate as the basis for a right of Jewish settlement in all areas west of the Jordan, but it is difficult to see what contemporary relevance this has, as the Mandate terminated at midnight on 14 May 1948"

You say: "[Art 80] seems a pretty definitive statement of fact making it clear the Jewish rights under the Mandate were preserved"

That's a mere conclusionary statement with zero legal reasoning. If the rights under the Mandate have been vitiated, there is nothing to preserve. This is trite law. Berman has explained how the rights were vitiated.

Whatever febrile rights have survived since 1947 must yield to the Palestinian's right to self determination or you have the absurd situation of an indigenous population losing its rights to self determination through agreements to which they were never party.
You can find Prof Saul's paper on Julius Stone's failue to address self deetrmintion at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1485056 and Andrew Dahdal touches on it too -http://worldlii.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UNDAULawRw/2008/4.html.

As for your comment that "Legal rights to self determination for the Arabs was granted in 99.99% of the captured Ottoman territories", that kind of statement might play well to some of the Meir Kahane type bigots lurking on JWire but anyone with an ounce of decency would find it absurd that an indigenous population be expected to relocate or take up citizenship in another state to make way for a incomming group. There is no legal precedent or legal basis for this proposition anyway.

David

Part 2

Two examples of intellectual dishonestly for you to perhaps consider:

You say: "As even your expert Berman said - the Mandate was an internationally binding legal treaty".

You know full well that Berman rejects Levy so dont use his words to try and support your argument. The mere fact that the Mandate was a treaty (which it obviously was) is not the point. The question is whether the treaty is still in existence 90 years on. You haven’t produced any authority to explain how this could possibly be the case in the face of the rebus sic stantibus principle and the overarching issue of Palestinian rights of self determination.

You say: "[Where did I]...admit that there are no statements by western Government supporting Levy."

Ok, lets recap.

You said (Friday, 28 June 2013 9:40:16 AM): "I never alleged there were any [statements by US/UK or other western governments supporting the Levy report or the Art80/Mandate position]". Anyone reading that statement would assume that you acknowledge that no governments supporting Levy or the Art80/Mandate position or that you cannot find any – the same thing. You know perfectly well that Levy was rejected by the entire Int community but it seems you are just not honest enough to admit it.

Finally, in response to David G "We have two Jewish lawyers arguing on a thread about Palestine. Sublime or ridiculous?".

Yes, well I dont know if the one is sublime, but the other is certainly proving to be ridiculous

#To Ben DR

You state:

"You can find Prof Scobbie's article re Levy on the EJIL website where he says: "Commentators have relied on the Mandate as the basis for a right of Jewish settlement in all areas west of the Jordan, but it is difficult to see what contemporary relevance this has, as the Mandate terminated at midnight on 14 May 1948"

Your above quote does not appear in Scobbie's article.

The following quote by Scobbie appears as a comment in response to a post to his article:

"A number of commentators have pointed out that while I referred to the Balfour Declaration, which I agree is not a legally binding document, I did not refer to the Mandate for Palestine. This is true, but neither did the Levy Report. It is also true that Article 6 of the Mandate provided:

The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.

Commentators have relied on this as the basis for a right of Jewish settlement in all areas west of the Jordan, but it is difficult to see what contemporary relevance this has, as the Mandate terminated at midnight on 14 May 1948."

Scobbie was untruthful.

The Levy Report dealt extensively with the Mandate, article 6 of the mandate and article 80 of the UN Charter preserving the terms of the Mandate as I have quoted to you previously.

Scobbie on his own admission clearly did not consider the relevance of article 80.

Quoting Scobbie as saying something in his article that he did not say and misquoting what he actually did say in responding to comments made to his article is the kind of intellectual dishonesty that continues to permeate your posts.

Again - put up or shut up

David,

I did not misquote Prof Scobbie. If you want to be pedantic, yes, the extract I cited was in his comment section debating the issue rather than the body of his article but what blinding difference does that make ? Those are his words. You even cite them yourself.

And why do you say Scobbie was untruthful ? Please support that assertion.

Berman deals directly with the point. Am still waiting for some insight into why you say he is incorrect.

Other than what you have parroted in Levy please quote the extract from that report which you say deals "extensively" with Art80.

As you are not yourself a recognized expert on Int Law, please also provide details of opinion from a contemporary and independent legal academic (a law professor from a recognized university) supporting Levy and Art80. I would expect this to take into account the arguments by Berman, Saul and Dahdal. And by independent I mean someone impartial who is also not a settler living or having interests in the West Bank (like most of the panel on the Levy report). As you know, in a highly contentious Int dispute such as this, impartiality of the legal expert is important.

In summary, other than parroting some bits of Levy you have not:

1. rebutted any points I or Prof Berman have made in opposition to Levy; or

2. found statements from western gov's supporting Levy or the Art80/Mandate point.

You now falsely accuse me of misquoting a law professor.

Really David, you are not doing very well here.

#Ben DR

Can I recap on where we are or are not at the present time:

You made the following claim

"I’ve said before, your reasoning re Art80/Mandate etc is plain wrong; it is rejected by every recognised legal expert not to mention every western government"

My response:

"Please advise any recognized legal expert or any western government who has rejected the art80/Mandate argument and provide the link to their opinion."

So far you have failed to substantiate your claim. If I am mistaken - please point out why.

Berman did not consider article 80 - as I pointed out.

Scobbie did not consider either the Mandate or article 80 as is clear from his own admission that I quoted to you.

The words Scobbie said were not the actual words you quoted. The subtle change you employed and your failure to advise readers that Scobbie admitted he had not considered the Mandate raises serious questions as to your intellectual honesty.

Since you still apparently maintain that every recognized legal expert has rejected the article 80/Mandate argument (which is clearly wrong as I have shown) - why have you been unable to find even one or two such experts who have?

The next time you quote a name or a link - I think you need to refer me to the actual quote considering and rejecting the article 80/mandate argument.

It is easy to make generalized statements. When you are challenged you need to be able to back them up. So far you have been unable to do so.

I am genuinely interested in finding any legal expert who has considered and rejected the article 80/Mandate argument.

As in any contentious issue there can always be different opinions from different legal experts - and only one can ultimately prevail if taken to Court.

I am intrigued that there appears to be no one that I - and apparently you - have been able to find who has considered and rejected the article 80/Mandate argument.

I was hoping you can help me uncover any such opinions. I am still waiting.

David,

We are going round in circles. You cant be genuinely be interested in exploring this issue if you are still having difficulty understanding how the material I have sent you addresses the Art80/Mandate point.

The single word I changed in Scobbie was the word "this" as follows:

"Commentators have relied on [this] (which I changed to "the Mandate") as the basis for a right of Jewish settlement in all areas west of the Jordan, but it is difficult to see what contemporary relevance this has, as the Mandate terminated at midnight on 14 May 1948"

If you think that is intellectual dishonesty then you really are a complete pedantic prat and I don't know why i or anyone else should be wasting time with you.

However when you find those statements from western govs supporting Levy or any independent academic papers in its favour let me know.

That's all for me. Best of luck.

#To Ben DR

Thank you for finally admitting you changed Scobbie's quote which I believe was deliberate and not inadvertent.

As you pick up your bat and depart the scene without producing one opinion rejecting the article 80/Mandate argument - the best you can do is take a swipe at those who make the argument as not producing "independent academic papers".

What do you have to say about this opinion of the International Court of Justice?

"Refuting the contentions of the South African Government and citing its own pronouncements in previous proceedings concerning South West Africa (Advisory Opinions of 1950, 1955 and 1956; Judgment of 1962), the Court recapitulates the history of the Mandate.
The mandates system established by Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations was based upon two principles of paramount importance: the principle of non-annexation and the principle that the well-being and development of the peoples concerned formed a sacred trust of civilisation. Taking the developments of the past half century into account, there can be little doubt that the ultimate objective of the sacred trust was self-determination and independence. The mandatory was to observe a number of obligations, and the Council of the League was to see that they were fulfilled. The rights of the mandatory as such had their foundation in those obligations.
When the League of Nations was dissolved, the raison d'etre and original object of these obligations remained. Since their fulfilment did not depend on the existence of the League, they could not be brought to an end merely because the supervisory organ had ceased to exist. The Members of the League had not declared, or accepted even by implication, that the mandates would be cancelled or lapse with the dissolution of the League.
The last resolution of the League Assembly and Article 80, paragraph 1, of the United Nations Charter maintained the obligations of mandatories. The International Court of Justice has consistently recognized that the Mandate survived the demise of the League, and South Africa also admitted as much for a number of years."

Goodbye and good riddance.

David,

You really won't let this go will you…

You have made a complete mountain out of a molehill over the Scobbie comment. Of course the change to the Scobbie comment was deliberate you silly man. I changed the word "this" to the word "the mandate" so I didn’t have to repeat the preceding paragraph. So what ?

I don’t know whether there is much point in me helping you understand why the SWA decision is irrelevant but here goes…

The opinion of the ICJ decision on the SWA Mandate does not take your argument far. If you read the judgement carefully, the reason why the court in the SWA case refers to Art80 is because it is addressing the question of the dissolution of the LON (see preceding words: "they could not be brought to an end merely because the supervisory organ had ceased to exist"). But that did not mean that the SWA Mandate could never have come to an end e.g. through - effluxion of time, the rebus sic stantibus principle, its raison d'etre ceasing, conflicts with international law norms etc. Nothing in the case suggests this.

You need to also understand the major issue overshadowing the SWA case. SA was arguing that the SWA Mandate didnt apply so it could continue to unlawfully occupy SWA and apply Apartheid. There was a strong impetus to uphold the SWA Mandate so that SA could be held in violation of it.

No such impetus applies with the 1922 Mandate which would result in the frustration of an indigenous group's right to self determination. Unlike the SA Government, the Arabs never accepted the terms of the mandate and it would be perverse justice if, by its terms, they forfeited their rights. At the very least you have to admit that this would be a highly unattractive argument for Isr to run and the prospects of the ICJ endorsing it are quite unimaginable

#To Ben DR - Part 1

You state:

" I changed the word "this" to the word "the mandate" so I didn’t have to repeat the preceding paragraph. So what ?"

With the greatest respect - you are continuing to try and mislead me and anyone else reading these exchanges.

You did not want us to know what Scobbie had said - not only in relation to the preceding paragraph but in the two preceding paragraphs - which were as follows.

"A number of commentators have pointed out that while I referred to the Balfour Declaration, which I agree is not a legally binding document, I did not refer to the Mandate for Palestine. This is true, but neither did the Levy Report. It is also true that Article 6 of the Mandate provided:

The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes."

Scobbie - who you were promoting as a legal expert arguing against the article 80/Mandate argument - admitted he had not considered the Mandate.

Scobbie also misleadingly said the Levy Committee had not considered the Mandate and article 80 - when it clearly had.

That is what you wanted to conceal by changing the word "this" to "the Mandate".

Thanks at least for now confirming you deliberately changed Scobbie's quote and that it was not due to inadvertence.

Calling me a "pedantic prat" does you no credit. It reduces you to the level of so many who resort to ad hominem attacks when they cannot find fault with the content of this article or fail to justify or substantiate generalized statements they make when challenged to do so.

You have failed abysmally in producing even one legal opinion to support your claim that every legal expert has rejected the article 80/Mandate argument.

To Ben DR - Part 2

You state:

"The opinion of the ICJ decision on the SWA Mandate does not take your argument far"

Here we go again. You - who said every legal expert had rejected the article 80/Mandate argument - is now trying to discredit the opinions of those who support the article 80/Mandate argument including the International Court - whom you have claimed were non-existent

Now you have a go at the International Court - which clearly stated:

"When the League of Nations was dissolved, the raison d'etre and original object of these obligations remained. Since their fulfilment did not depend on the existence of the League, they could not be brought to an end merely because the supervisory organ had ceased to exist. The Members of the League had not declared, or accepted even by implication, that the mandates would be cancelled or lapse with the dissolution of the League.
The last resolution of the League Assembly and Article 80, paragraph 1, of the United Nations Charter maintained the obligations of mandatories."

Note the last word is "mandatories" - that is the Court's statement of the effect of article 80 applied to all the Mandates including the Mandate for Palestine.

I repeat - in my opinion the rights created under the Mandate for Palestine including the right of Jews to closely settle state lands and waste lands not required for public purposes whilst ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population were not prejudiced - are preserved by article 80 of the UN Charter and will continue to do so until article 80 is removed from the Charter.

This viewpoint is supported by the legal opinions of lawyers I have cited and the International Court

I am still waiting for you to produce the opinion of any legal expert who refutes this claim. Name him and quote his opinion - as I have.

That is where our exchange started and where I believe it is going to end.

David

Move on from the Scobbie issue it's getting boring. He did consider the Art 80/Mandate issue. What do you think he is doing by saying by "...but it is difficult to see what contemporary relevance this has, as the Mandate terminated at midnight on 14 May 1948."

Stop saying I haven't provided one expert opinion on this issue when I have given you Berman. Explain why he doesn't cover the point or stop repeating the assertion.

The only expert you provided who supports what you are saying is Rostow. Go back to the Berman and read from the words "Turning to the Rostow-inspired argument ..."

Here is an interesting bit from the SWA ICJ opinion dealing with Art 80: " 59. A striking feature of this provision is the stipulation in favour of the preservation of the rights of "any peoples", thus clearly including the inhabitants of the mandated territories and, in particular, their indigenous populations. "

This supports the proposition that the Pals right of self determination (enshrined in Art 1) is preserved by Art 80 and nothing in the mandates in and of itself alters that.

As for your comment that your viewpoint is supported by the International Court, the ICJ of course held that settlements are illegal which makes it highly unlikely that the ICJ would support your viewpoint.

David,

Re your Part 2

I have not sought to "discredit" the SWA ICJ case. Far from it, I have referred to it to explain how it does not support your argument (see par59 of decision referred to earlier).

I explained how it takes your argument only so far and also that the basis for upholding the SWA mandate was fundamentally different from the basis on which you are seeking to uphold the 1922 Mandate. As I said, in the SWA case the court upheld the mandate to protect the rights of an indigenous population. On your view of the 1922 Mandate, the court would be upholding the mandate to deny rights to an indigenous population. You have not explained how you think a court would ever permit such a perverse outcome.

You refer to the word "mandatories" in the citation of the judgment as if that is some revelation. Have never said Art80 did not at some stage apply to the 1922 Mandate but that is not point. The question is rather whether anything remains of the mandate to apply through Art 80.

You have admitted that Art 80 does not freeze for all time rights in the Mandate so the only question is whether the rules in mandate can still be applied after 90 years of history, numerous wars, UN resolutions and Int Law's undoubted acceptance of the Pals right of self determination.

As Ive said several times now go back to Berman and read from the words "Turning to the Rostow-inspired argument ..." and you will see why he believes it is doubtful the mandate has survived. As he says, the purpose of the mandate was met by the creation of the State of Isr and that the "core legal values" have changed. You have not explained why you disagree or presented a counter opinion from another legal expert.

#To Ben DR

You state:

"Move on from the Scobbie issue it's getting boring. He did consider the Art 80/Mandate issue."

You continue your blatant deception and intellectual dishonesty.

Scobbie made the following admission in relation to his article:

"A number of commentators have pointed out that while I referred to the Balfour Declaration, which I agree is not a legally binding document, I did not refer to the Mandate for Palestine. This is true,"

Scobbie's clear admission makes your claim laughable.

I have already given you my reasons for substantiating that Berman did not refute the article 80 / Mandate argument. I couldn't give a hoot if you reject my reasons.

According to you all the legal experts have refuted the article 80/ Mandate argument.

Who are they? Quote their opinions on the specific issue to prove your claim.

Your claim that it is highly unlikely that the the International Court would accept the article 80/Mandate argument seems again an exercise in deception by you when one reads the following paragraph 63 from the SWA case:

"..the States participating at the San Francisco Conference obviously took into account the fact that the adoption of the Charter of the United Nations would render the disappearance of the League of Nations inevitable. This shows the common understanding and intention at San Francisco that Article 80, paragraph 1, of the Charter had the purpose and effect of keeping in force al1 rights whatsoever, including those contained in the Covenant itself, against any claim as to their possible lapse with the dissolution of the League."

Can you ever substantiate any statement you make when it is challenged?

You really are an embarrassment to your profession.

I understand now why you are reluctant to reveal your name.

#To Ben DR

You state:

"On your view of the 1922 Mandate, the court would be upholding the mandate to deny rights to an indigenous population."

What indigenous population are you talking about in Palestine? What was the name of that indigenous population?

The British and Ottoman census figures only spoke of Jews, Moslems, Christians and Others.

The Mandate never mentioned an indigenous population. It only mentioned "the non-Jewish communities", "safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion"

Were all 51 member nations of the League of Nations so blind that they failed to discover the existence of any such "indigenous population"?

I repeat - 99.99% of the captured Ottoman territories set aside for self determination in 1920 was allocated to the Arabs and 0.01% for the Jews. Effect was given to that decision through the creation of the Mandates for Palestine, Syria and Lebanon and Mesopotamia

When the UN voted to partition Palestine in 1947 into one Jewish State and one Arab state - was the UN too so blind as to miss the existence of this "indigenous population"?

Again - justify your unsubstantiated claim.

You further state:

"Have never said Art 80 did not at some stage apply to the 1922 Mandate but that is not point. The question is rather whether anything remains of the mandate to apply through Art 80."

Yes it does. Article 80 preserves the legal right for Jews to closely settle in all or part of the West Bank and Gaza on public lands or state lands for the purpose of reconstituting the Jewish National Home - being the only remaining areas of the Mandate where sovereignty still remains unallocated between Jews and Arabs.

Such right is subject to the civil and religious rights of all the other inhabitants irrespective of race and religion not being prejudiced.

Article 80 continues to preserve all such rights whilst it remains in the UN Charter

David,

Re your Scobbie fixation: Scobbie says he didn't consider the Mandate in the main body of his article. He then goes on to deal with it in his comments, making a point apparently not considered by Levy, namely the expiry of the Mandate. I apologise. I didn’t realise that you had a reading disability and that all this would require so much explanation.

If you still think Scobbie was "dishonest" I suggest you take it up with him directly. I am sure he would be delighted by your elevated discourse.

On the subject of elevated discourse, it is no answer to my points to ignore them and then say "I couldn’t give a hoot if you reject my reasons", or to resort to childish ad hominems. You have not rebutted my points or Berman's on factors vitiating the impact and relevance of a now 90 year old treaty.

The best you appear to have come up with is that the Palestinians were not an indigenous people entitled to rights to self determination. That view is rejected by historians, lawyers, and the ICJ in 2004. Of course the 1922 Mandate mentioned the indigenous population. What do you think the reference to "non-Jewish communities" is ?

Your belief that the ICJ would support your argument is fascinating. What are the chances of that given that in 2004 they unanimously held the settlements to be illegal ?

You keep asking which legal experts reject the Art80/mandate point but don’t seem to realise that, by a process of deduction available to any 11 year old, the ICJ had to have discounted it to come to its 2004 opinion. Berman has said "at least 90% of international lawyers – including the International Court of Justice – firmly reject the position that the [Levy] report announces".

If you are saying that the ICJ was oblivious to the argument, that is preposterous. In any event, Berman has tackled it head on and you have not given a cogent response.

#To Ben DR

1. So are you now saying the rights conferred by the Mandate were extinguished when Britain handed back the Mandate to the UN in 1948?

Please answer - "Yes" or "No"

2. I have had my say on Berman's article and do not intend to repeat them.

However you might care to read what others have had to say about Berman's article.

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/san-remo-in-shilo-the-settlements-and-legal-history/

http://myrightword.blogspot.co.il/2012/07/bermans-post-modernist-cultural.html

3. Which one of the "non-Jewish communities" mentioned in the Mandate was the "indigenous population"?

4. Please name the historians and lawyers who assert that "the Palestinians were an indigenous people entitled to rights of self determination" in 1922. Please quote their opinions to this effect and that part of the ICJ 2004 decision that you claim supports this conclusion.

5. The International Court has already addressed the article 80/Mandate argument directly and clearly in the SWA case as I have pointed out in several quotations to you. Do you dispute their veracity? Do I need to re-post them for you to re-read?

6. I ask you again - produce at least one other legal expert to support your claim that every legal expert has refuted the Article 80/Mandate argument. Berman simply does come into this category. Then perhaps we can continue this discussion.

David

Even if termination of the Mandate by the UK was insufficient (per Rostow's untested trust argument), other factors listed by Berman and rise of peremptory norms such as right of SD cast doubt on its continued application.

One of your links was to the Berman article itself (!?). The other is from a Mr Medad. He is not even a lawyer so Court will not prefer his arguments over those of a Prof of Int Law at a leading university. Plus Madad's hardly impartial - lives in the WB. Am however familiar with his views (he contributed to the EJIL debate with Scobbie). In the link you sent, he tries to deal with the rebus sic stantibus principle, but gets it wrong.

Re "non-Jewish communities"/"indigenous population": both the 1922 and 1931 British census confirm that there was an indigenous population made up of Muslims, Druze and Christians.

Re "Palestinians an indigenous people entitled to rights of self determination" in 1922." – Won't find much about the right in 1922 as concept only gained prominence later. Doesn’t mean no such rights existed then or now. Stone tried to argue otherwise. His views have been rejected – see again Saul and Dahdal. Also read about the "inter-temporal rule" here www.soas.ac.uk/lawpeacemideast/publications/file60534.pdf

The ICJ obviously considered that Pals had rights of SD - see end of par 122. Even dissenter Buergenthal [par 4] said "I accept that the Palestinian people have the right to self-determination and that it is entitled to be fully protected.".

The SWA case is authority for the right of SD (in fact it expressly said Art 80 preserved that right for indigenous populations [59]). It's distinguishable anyway as it didn’t deal with a rebus sic stantibus. Unlikely anything said by Crt on Art80 could be seen as undermining right of SD which it was seeking to uphold and no legal writer has ever said otherwise.

You say Berman "simply does come into [the] category" of persons refuting the Art80/mandate argument". Back that up Mr.

David,

You might also want to look at the paper I sent you in the link above by Prof Scobbie who argues that it is inconsistent to now lay claim to the whole of the Mandate territory when Isr never took this step in 1948 and where its own Supreme Court has said that the territory of the State of Israel does not coincide with all the territory under the former Mandate- see from top of [46].

www.soas.ac.uk/lawpeacemideast/publications/file60534.pdf

Even more compelling is that fact that to this day, Isr has never sought to annex the whole area.

So that is another paper refuting your Art80/Mandate point.

So far I have given you references to 2 legal academics who address this. You have referred me to blog by a WB settler with no legal qualifications

#To Ben DR - Your response 4 July 3:59:31

1. You state:

"Even if termination of the Mandate by the UK was insufficient (per Rostow's untested trust argument)...,"

Do you agree then that Scobbie has got it wrong when he claims the rights created under the Mandate ended in 1948?

"Yes" or "No"

2. You continue:

"..other factors listed by Berman and rise of peremptory norms such as right of SD cast doubt on its continued application."

Please detail

(a) the other factors listed by Berman

(b) the peremptory norms

(c) the dates when the matters in (a) and (b) arose after 1948.

(d) How those matters cast doubt on the article 80/Mandate argument

3. You continue:

" One of your links was to the Berman article itself (!?)."

You seem surprisingly mystified. Why?

I clearly stated: "However you might care to read what others have had to say about Berman's article."

So please now go and read what they say.

Some people (unlike you) have identified themselves including Medad, Mark Kaplan - Director at the Office for Israeli Constitutional Law, Justice Now and David Olesker - Director at Jerusalem Centre for Communication and Advocacy Training - and have criticised Berman's opinion.

Berman has not responded. His silence says a lot. Why don't you go on the link and stand up for Berman and answer all these criticisms?

4. You continue:

" In the link you sent, he (Medad) tries to deal with the rebus sic stantibus principle, but gets it wrong."

Please advise what he says and why you say he is wrong or alternatively respond to him directly and let me know when you have done it.

5. You state:

"Re "Palestinians an indigenous people entitled to rights of self determination" in 1922." – Won't find much about the right in 1922 as concept only gained prominence later."

When do you allege this concept gained prominence?

It certainly had not gained prominence by 1947 when the UN Partition Plan only spoke of a Jewish State and an Arab State.

So please back up your statement with a date.

#To Ben DR - Your response 4 July 6:58:29

Thanks for referring me to another article by the discredited Scobbie who to refresh everyone's memory claimed:

1. The Levy Report did not deal with the Mandate - when it did

2. The rights created under the Mandate expired with the termination of the Mandate in 1948 - when even you - very reluctantly appear to disagree with that opinion.

I went and had a look at the article and quite frankly stopped reading at page (viii) of the introduction when I read the following:

"But Palestinian  agreement  to  this  drastic  shrinkage  of 
their  patrimony reducing  the  territory  assigned  to  them  by  the Partition Plan by half  – leaving them with 22 percent of Mandate 
Palestine – only  served  to  deepen  their  sense  of  unfairness and outrage that in the aftermath of the 1967 war, Israel has sought to 
enlarge  the  78  percent  of  Palestine  it  had  already  acquired  by confiscating additional Palestinian territory from the little that was left them." 

22 per cent of Mandate Palestine comprised what is today called Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. The other 78% of Mandate Palestine comprised what is today called Jordan. Jordan became a sovereign independent exclusively Arab Palestinian state in 1946.

In 2013 Israel comprises 17% of Mandate Palestine (not 78%), Gaza and the West Bank comprise 5% of Mandate Palestine (not 22%),and Jordan comprises 78% of Mandate Palestine.

If Scobbie again gets his facts wrong - how can anything he argues based on those incorrect facts be given any credence?

Ben DR:

Is Israel 78% of Mandate Palestine and the West Bank 22% of Mandate Palestine - as Scobbie claims

OR

Is Israel 17% pf Mandate Palestine and the West Bank and Gaza 5% of Mandate Palestine - as I claim?

If there is no agreement on the area of land included in Mandate Palestine - how can anyone talk about resolving the 90 years conflict between Jews and Arabs to settle who is entitled to it?

Many - and I suspect you to be one of them - argue that the Palestinian Arabs are entitled to 100% of Mandate Palestine based on international law

I stand ready to be corrected as to your views.

David

Responding to your points:

1.Was Scobbie wrong: No but termination of Mandate was but one of several factors that undermine its continued application. In fact if you bothered to read the Scobbie article, you would see he provides another, namely Isr's acceptance of the concept of Partition.

2. List "other factors" and peremptory rights: If you can't work this out yourself from the Berman article, ICJ decisions, and paper by Scobbie you are not an expert on international law. I am not here to teach you Int law, although frankly if you cant see that the right of SD is a peremptory norm you have no hope.

3. If you are saying there was some effort to rebut Berman in the link, it don’t appear there. Kaplan and Olesker are propagandists, not independent legal experts. Kaplan's website states its aims " To expose and amplify the rules and principles of international law as it relates to the inalienable rights and exclusive sovereignty of the Jewish People and its agent or trustee, the State of Israel, over the entire Land of Israel". If you call that an objective expert witness, you are obviously not a litigator. David, don’t insult me by sending me this rubbish. Find proper legal papers by indep legal experts or stop wasting my time.

4. If you cant see how Medad fails to understand the rebus sic stantibus principle then you don’t understand it yourself.

5. You should know full well that rights of SD gained prominence in the 60s (colonial independence). The intertemporal rule makes it irrelevant that the right of SD was only in its infancy in 1922 or 1948. Go read about the rule in Scobbie and stop being an idiot. In any event, this whole discussion about SD is academic as the ICJ decision confirmed the right in 2004. Provide a legal opinion refuting this or stop wasting my time.

Your 2nd post.

When people talk about the territorial dispute in Isr and the WB in 2013 they are not referring to the position in 1922 or to Jordanian territory. So there is nothing factually incorrect about the reference to 78% - 22%.

You didnt bother reading the rest of Scobbie because you dont understand him or dont want to hear another view point. So much for being "genuinely interested" in exploring this.

Under Int law your nonsense about Palestine being Jordan does not render legal the Isr settlements in the WB. Frankly I don’t know where you are going with this argument but If you are saying that the ICJ would deny Pals rights to SD on the basis that they should have all moved to Jordan or taken up Jordanian citizenship you are quite misinformed.

#To Ben DR

Being insulted and lectured to by someone who:
1. Is not prepared to give his name
2. Refuses to substantiate general statements without giving any supporting evidence when challenged to do so
3. Changes the quoted remarks of others to suit his own purposes
Indicates the futility of having any kind of rational discussion with you.

Put up or shut up - name all the legal experts who you claim refute the article 80/mandate argument and refer me specifically to what they say that leads you to draw that conclusion.

That is the original claim you made - substantiate it.

So far you have named Scobbie and Berman. Are there any others?

Another example of your intellectual dishonesty has now emerged from your latest statement:

"When people talk about the territorial dispute in Isr and the WB in 2013 they are not referring to the position in 1922 or to Jordanian territory. So there is nothing factually incorrect about the reference to 78% - 22%."

This statement more than any indicates the intellectual dishonesty that is represented by people such as yourself who seek to eradicate from any consideration the provisions of Article 6 of the Mandate and article 80 of the UN Charter. They are as relevant in 2013 as they were when first pronounced in 1922 and 1945.

Your attempts to refute this claim are rejected.

.

David,

I think the good Dr has you in a bind, give up while you are behind and before he places you further down the hole of your own making.

Have a nice weekend

Geoff

#To Geoff of Perth

You and BenDR are two of a kind - making allegations that you cannot substantiate and doing so under the cloak of anonymity.

I am still waiting for you to substantiate your following statement - which I have asked you to do on at least three occasions:

" The 'benefits' ex servicemen and women get in Israel is just so vastly different to what is on offer in other countries, especially when we start talking about land and housing."

How do you know what those benefits are when you yourself state - "
"They have been working on a disgustingly discriminatory piece of legislation"

Why don't you fill us in with the details of that legislation and tell us how it is so 'vastly different' from what we have in Australia.

You are making the claims - justify them

Sorry David,

but Dr Ben and I are not of the same ilk.

He is way beyond my skill and aptitude vis Foreign Relations and International Law, as I stated previously, I am a mere minion in comparison.

As to you, well thank "God" whomever he may appear to you, may he grant you peace, serenity and your continued misguided faith, I am running out of people to crucify, Thanks David, you are a blessing in disguise.

Geoff

#To Geoff of Perth

I am not sure if Ben DR is Dr Ben. He refuses to identify himself - just like you - other than to tell us he is Jewish and a lawyer.

Both you and he are in the same league when it comes to making wild and unsubstantiated statements that cannot be backed up when challenged.

Your reliance on the opinion of a person who changes quoted statements to serve his own ends,misleads and deceives at every turn and fails to answer "Yes" or " No" when asked a question to confirm or deny a fact - as I have pointed out and you have obviously read - is not therefore surprising.

The one positive is that at least one Jew's opinion can influence your thinking. Be careful - it could become infectious.

Having failed again to provide any evidence to back up your following statement for a fourth time - are you now prepared to withdraw it?

" The 'benefits' ex servicemen and women get in Israel is just so vastly different to what is on offer in other countries, especially when we start talking about land and housing."

I am waiting....

David

You can post all you like about how i havent substantiated myself, but you are fooling no one but yourself. Have gone to great lengths to explain where you have gone wrong. Yet you cant produce details of a single Int law authority to refute what Berman and Scobbie have said.

You now seem to be saying that, contrary to what the ICJ expressly held in 2004 on the Pals rights of SD and the inter temporal rule, the Pals rights to SD somehow yield to Isr's rights under the mandate. However you cannot back that up with a legal opinion from a single expert.

David, there really is no point responding unless you can provide these legal opinions.

#To Ben DR

Before responding to your latest post can you answer "Yes" or "No" to this question:

Do you use the name "Ben David" in any posts that you send to other websites?

Yes

#To Ben DR

Thank you for admitting you use two different anonymous names to post on different sites. Given your admission that you also changed a quote by Professor Scobbie - I don't wish to engage in any further correspondence with you.

Is that the kind of conduct a lawyer should engage in? No wonder you don't want to identify yourself publicly. Maybe you are not even a lawyer or even Jewish as you claim to be.

Does all wisdom reside in BEN DR and Ben David ( and maybe any other names you might use) to denigrate the opinions of others like Rostow, Riebenfeld , Stone, Greif, Levy, Baker and Kaplan,because they are Zionists, Jews and perhaps even live in the West Bank?

Does that give me the license to criticise the opinions of Berman, Scobbie and yourself because you are anti-Zionists who do not believe the Jews are legally entitled to their own State in their biblical and ancestral homeland?

My position on the Mandate and article 80 (supported also by the ICJ in the SWA case as I have quoted to you) remains unchanged and still applicable in 2013.

You have failed to specify the date when those rights were ended.

The experts you produced - Scobbie and Berman - have not directly addressed the issue of The Mandate and article 80. Your attempt to claim they have in an indirect and round about manner is rejected.

You have failed to produce any expert lawyer who has addressed the issue directly and come to a different conclusion.

Just remember that any case only goes to Court because there are two different legal opinions - only one of which will prevail.

it is a pity you didn't leave OLO when you said you would (do lawyers go back on their undertakings as well?)

Stick to your opinion if you will because I will stick to mine until a Court decides that the rights conferred on the Jewish people by article 6 of the Mandate and article 80 of the UN Charter have been extinguished and no longer apply.

Looks like Syria and Iraq will each require a three-state solution.

Egypt could implode.

Things are certainly looking interesting in the M-E.