#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