David

Responding to your points:

1.Was Scobbie wrong: No but termination of Mandate was but one of several factors that undermine its continued application. In fact if you bothered to read the Scobbie article, you would see he provides another, namely Isr's acceptance of the concept of Partition.

2. List "other factors" and peremptory rights: If you can't work this out yourself from the Berman article, ICJ decisions, and paper by Scobbie you are not an expert on international law. I am not here to teach you Int law, although frankly if you cant see that the right of SD is a peremptory norm you have no hope.

3. If you are saying there was some effort to rebut Berman in the link, it don’t appear there. Kaplan and Olesker are propagandists, not independent legal experts. Kaplan's website states its aims " To expose and amplify the rules and principles of international law as it relates to the inalienable rights and exclusive sovereignty of the Jewish People and its agent or trustee, the State of Israel, over the entire Land of Israel". If you call that an objective expert witness, you are obviously not a litigator. David, don’t insult me by sending me this rubbish. Find proper legal papers by indep legal experts or stop wasting my time.

4. If you cant see how Medad fails to understand the rebus sic stantibus principle then you don’t understand it yourself.

5. You should know full well that rights of SD gained prominence in the 60s (colonial independence). The intertemporal rule makes it irrelevant that the right of SD was only in its infancy in 1922 or 1948. Go read about the rule in Scobbie and stop being an idiot. In any event, this whole discussion about SD is academic as the ICJ decision confirmed the right in 2004. Provide a legal opinion refuting this or stop wasting my time.

Your 2nd post.

When people talk about the territorial dispute in Isr and the WB in 2013 they are not referring to the position in 1922 or to Jordanian territory. So there is nothing factually incorrect about the reference to 78% - 22%.

You didnt bother reading the rest of Scobbie because you dont understand him or dont want to hear another view point. So much for being "genuinely interested" in exploring this.

Under Int law your nonsense about Palestine being Jordan does not render legal the Isr settlements in the WB. Frankly I don’t know where you are going with this argument but If you are saying that the ICJ would deny Pals rights to SD on the basis that they should have all moved to Jordan or taken up Jordanian citizenship you are quite misinformed.

#To Ben DR

Being insulted and lectured to by someone who:
1. Is not prepared to give his name
2. Refuses to substantiate general statements without giving any supporting evidence when challenged to do so
3. Changes the quoted remarks of others to suit his own purposes
Indicates the futility of having any kind of rational discussion with you.

Put up or shut up - name all the legal experts who you claim refute the article 80/mandate argument and refer me specifically to what they say that leads you to draw that conclusion.

That is the original claim you made - substantiate it.

So far you have named Scobbie and Berman. Are there any others?

Another example of your intellectual dishonesty has now emerged from your latest statement:

"When people talk about the territorial dispute in Isr and the WB in 2013 they are not referring to the position in 1922 or to Jordanian territory. So there is nothing factually incorrect about the reference to 78% - 22%."

This statement more than any indicates the intellectual dishonesty that is represented by people such as yourself who seek to eradicate from any consideration the provisions of Article 6 of the Mandate and article 80 of the UN Charter. They are as relevant in 2013 as they were when first pronounced in 1922 and 1945.

Your attempts to refute this claim are rejected.

.

David,

I think the good Dr has you in a bind, give up while you are behind and before he places you further down the hole of your own making.

Have a nice weekend

Geoff

#To Geoff of Perth

You and BenDR are two of a kind - making allegations that you cannot substantiate and doing so under the cloak of anonymity.

I am still waiting for you to substantiate your following statement - which I have asked you to do on at least three occasions:

" 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."

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

Sorry David,

but Dr Ben and I are not of the same ilk.

He is way beyond my skill and aptitude vis Foreign Relations and International Law, as I stated previously, I am a mere minion in comparison.

As to you, well thank "God" whomever he may appear to you, may he grant you peace, serenity and your continued misguided faith, I am running out of people to crucify, Thanks David, you are a blessing in disguise.

Geoff