#jeremy

1 and 2: You better read the Mandate more closely. The Jews were given the right "to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in Palestine"

Whether it meant the whole or any part of Palestine is open to interpretation. Winston Churchill explained that when the words "in Palestine" were used it did not mean the whole of Palestine. This was the basis that he sought to exclude the Jewish National Home being established in 78% of the Mandate territory (Transjordan)- just three months after the Mandate was promulgated. That left only 22% of the Mandated territory for the Jewish National Home.

3. The boundary between Egypt and Israel was established in 1979. The boundary between Jordan and Israel was established in 1994.

The status of the West Bank,Gaza and East Jerusalem remains to be determined.

The UN was attempting to settle the conflict between Jews and Arabs that had been raging since 1922. The Arabs refused to accept the terms of the Mandate and the proposed earlier partition recommended by the Peel Commission in 1937.

4.What then is you position on the meaning of Resolution 242?

5. I think its nice to see you apparently accept that there are now indeed two conflicting legal viewpoints - as is usually the case in legal disputes. It is not an open and shut case. What surprises me is the failure of those many states to have even considered the Mandate and article 80. It does them and their foreign ministries no credit to have considered half the law and not the lot.

6. I bet you are heartily sick of this issue. For the third time the breaches occurred between November 2008 - 19 December 2008

Those Arabs no longer living in the Jewish National Home can hardly claim to be entitled to protections that were only to apply to Arabs living in the Jewish National Home under the terms of the Mandate.

You say:

For the third time the breaches occurred between November 2008 - 19 December 2008

And how does that help if I find the my source alleges that the (initial) breach was on (for example) 19th November? I don't think you have any idea what "tedious" means.

(you say)
Those Arabs no longer living in the Jewish National Home can hardly claim to be entitled to protections that were only to apply to Arabs living in the Jewish National Home under the terms of the Mandate.

So a no discrimination clause permits them to be expelled and not readmitted, and therefore the clause does not apply to them? You must be joking.

Needless to say, the factor we've left out of this is that even if there is no specific legal protection for them, ordinary human decency prohibits expelling people, or not readmitting those who have fled from a war.

#Jeremy

The breach of the ceasefire referred to in my article initially occurred on 4 November 2008.

Perhaps you might now answer "Yes" or "No" to the following questions I posed to you:

1.Does article 6 of the Mandate give Jews the legal right to settle in the West Bank on State lands and lands not required for public purposes?

2. (a)Do you agree Jordan comprised 78% of the Mandate and not one Jew lives there today because their right to do so was withheld by Great Britain with League of Nations approval just three months after the Mandate was promulgated.?

(b)Do you agree that such right to reconstitute the Jewish National Home was not withheld in the West Bank and Gaza?

3. The UN Plan only recommended - not fixed - the boundaries of the Jewish State. Had the Arabs accepted the plan there would be no continuing conflict in 2011.

Is this your general understanding?

4. UN Security Council resolution 242 did not require Israel to withdraw from all of the territories occupied in 1967. Israel has already withdrawn from over 90% of those territories. Israel is only required to withdraw to "secure and recognized boundaries"

Is this your general understanding?

A simple "Yes" or "No" will suffice.