#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)