#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