#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