Written commitments are not treaties. Most nations of the world agree that the settlements are illegal. Any written commitment by the United States in support of illegal activities should be revoked. President Obama has no obligation to support any written commitment which condones or accepts illegal activities by the Israeli government. The previous written commitments did not become treaties probably because of the awareness that those commitments accepted the settlements that most nations agree are in violation of international law.

Unlike Israel where the prime minister is a member of of parliament the president of the United States has been elected by the people of the United as a whole. President Obama would be wrong to go to Israel, ignore Prime Minister Netanyahu and speak to Meretz or some other party not in government. Prime Minister Netanyahu is equally wrong to go to the United States, speak to Congress and ignore the president.

Singer wrote: "Israel – and Israel alone - must determine where its secure, recognized and defensible borders are to be located under these American Written Commitments."

The American commitments do not have treaty status, and Israel must negotiate with the other parties involved to determine any borders.

You make an assumption that the land used by Isrealis was illegally obtained. My understanding of it is that the lands developed were legally obtianed by purchase from sales made by Palestinians or at lease by far the most of them.

One thing I am certain of is that the underlying premise on which your comment is based desrves a more thorought examination than I am able to give it. If you want to comment at least get outside of your politically defined box and appreciate the larger picture in all it's detail. Maybe then we will at least have an informed debate.

As for legalities imposed on Israel from outside, they are not worth the paper or words used to express them.

#david f

The State Department website sets out the following:
"As explained in greater detail in 11 FAM 721.2, there are two procedures under domestic law through which the United States becomes a party to an international agreement. First, international agreements (regardless of their title, designation, or form) whose entry into force with respect to the United States takes place only after two thirds of the U.S. Senate has given its advice and consent under Article II, section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution are "treaties." Second, international agreements brought into force with respect to the United States on a constitutional basis other than with the advice and consent of the Senate are "international agreements other than treaties" and are often referred to as "executive agreements."
http://www.state.gov/s/l/treaty/faqs/70133.htm

The commitments made by President Bush in his letter dated 12 April 2004 as consented to by more than two thirds of the Senate could therefore be construed to constitute a Treaty under Article 11 Section 2 Clause 2:
"He [The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;"

Alternatively the commitments made by President Bush could be construed as an Executive Agreement made with Israel pursuant to the Constitutional Authority of the President.

"The President may conclude an international agreement on any subject within his constitutional authority so long as the agreement is not inconsistent with legislation enacted by the Congress in the exercise of its constitutional authority. The constitutional sources of authority for the President to conclude international agreements include:
(1) The President's authority as Chief Executive to represent the nation in foreign affairs;
(2) The President's authority to receive ambassadors and other public ministers, and to recognize foreign governments;
(3) The President's authority as “Commander-in-Chief”; and
(4) The President's authority to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/88317.pdf

President Obama now needs to urgently answer whether he considers himself bound by the commitments made by President Bush in his letter dated 14 April 2004.

Beating around the Bush is pointless.

Dear David Singer,

Thank you for information. A treaty or agreement binds all parties to it. In your article you did not consider Israel bound by the agreement. Part 3 of the agreement stated:

"Accepted as part of a final peace settlement that Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338."

In your article you stated:

"Israel – and Israel alone - must determine where its secure, recognized and defensible borders are to be located under these American Written Commitments."

That directly contradicts part 3 of the agreement. Apparently you want Obama bound by the agreement, but Israel does not have to be. That hardly seems fair, but in this and your previous articles on the subject you don't appear to be concerned with fairness.

In my humble opinion the fact that the agreement allows continual Israeli occupation of the settlements is enough to void them. As a lawyer you know that an agreement to continue or initiate an illegal activity is unenforceable.

#David f

You have apparently misunderstood my statement:
""Israel – and Israel alone - must determine where its secure, recognized and defensible borders are to be located under these American Written Commitments."

It will be Israel - not America - that will determine where its secure recognized and defensible borders will be in any future negotiations with the PLO (although it appears there will be none at this stage).

If Israel decides to do land swaps - it will be Israel's decision.

If israel does not agree to land swaps - then America has agreed to honour and respect Israel's decision under the Bush letter.

You state:

"In my humble opinion the fact that the agreement allows continual Israeli occupation of the settlements is enough to void them. As a lawyer you know that an agreement to continue or initiate an illegal activity is unenforceable."

At least you are prepared to now concede there is an agreement but that it is supposedly tainted by illegality - which is incorrect. There has been no binding Court decision ruling that Jews do not have the right to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in Judea and Samaria ( West Bank ), Gaza and East .Jerusalem under article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the United Nations Charter.

However it is President Obama - not you or me - who must answer whether he is bound by the Bush commitments - and if not - provide the Congress and the American constituency with his reasons for rejecting the Bush commitments.

When he provides his answer - then the matter can be further argued.

Whilst Obama remains silent - there is a gaping hole in America's foreign policy regarding its position on the resolution of the Arab- Jewish conflict.

Dear David Singer,

<<There has been no binding Court decision ruling that Jews do not have the right to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in Judea and Samaria ( West Bank ), Gaza and East .Jerusalem under article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the United Nations Charter.>>

We have been through this before. A law comes into force when it is passed not when a court makes a ruling. A court may rule that a law is void or inoperative. However, it becomes law when it is passed and remains law unless a court finds it in conflict with other law. The settlements remain in violation of the Geneva Protocol. A Jewish National Home is not a concept recognised in international law. Jews like everybody else should have the right to live anywhere they are accepted for residence. Netanyahu was completely out of line in telling French Jews their home is in Israel. I would deeply resent it if the head of a foreign country were to tell me my home is not in my country but in his. The mandate is a dead letter which has no force any more.

The fact you refer to the territories as Judea and Samaria is interesting.

#David F

1. The 1922 Mandate for Palestine created by the unanimous resolution of all 51 member states of the League of Nations is a binding document in international law.

2. The Mandate is not a dead letter which has no force anymore. Its provisions remain alive in 2015 by virtue of article 80 of the United Nations Charter.

3. The provisions of the Mandate and article 80 specifically apply to Judea and Samaria and Gaza. The 1949 Geneva Conventions do not have any retrospective effect nor can they act to vary the terms of article 80 of the UN charter unless specifically stated to so apply - which they do not.

4. The names Judea and Samaria are the geographical terms that were applied from Biblical times until 1950 when their illegal occupier Jordan changed those names to the "West Bank" to distinguish it from the "East Bank" after Judea and Samaria had been territorially united with Transjordan and the newly constituted entity was named Jordan. The name change erased any Jewish connection Judea and Samaria where Jews had lived continuously until they were driven out in the 1948 War. Judea and Samaria were the terms used in the 1947 UN Partition Plan.

You continue to express legal opinions which have no validity or foundation.

Do you have any legal background or are your opinions based on the views of lawyers?

If the latter - you should quote the sources on which you rely.

You are now raising issues which have nothing to do with my article. I will not be responding to any comments which do not directly bear on my article - other than to point out they are irrelevant and do not raise issues arising out of my article.

Dear David Singer,

I raised issues that have nothing with to do with your article. That is quite true. I am trying to find out why you are so committed to Israel. I guess it will remain a mystery to me. We are operating on very different wave lengths.

#davidf

My wavelength is based on facts. Your wavelength is not based on facts - as I continually and repeatedly have to point out to you - and as I have done yet again during our current exchanges.

Raising issues that have nothing to do with my articles - as you have freely admitted - are best left for other places.

You are not on your own. The identical conduct is engaged in by most correspondents - who obviously think it smart to raise issues that are irrelevant to the content of my articles - using their publication as an opportunity to post a response denigrating and delegitimizing Israel.

I hope that in future you limit your comments to matters dealt with in my articles with which you disagree.

I am more than happy to respond to any such comments.

Dear David Singer,

You defend keeping a commitment to continuing an illegal activity and then consider it bringing in an unrelated issue when I point out that the activity is illegal.

You deal with the facts that you want to deal with and ignore the others. That is a lawyer making a case rather than seeking right or justice.

Previous US commitments to continuing and defending the settlements were wrong, and President Obama is continuing wrong if he kept those commitments.

Dear David Singer,

You wrote:

<<You continue to express legal opinions which have no validity or foundation.

Do you have any legal background or are your opinions based on the views of lawyers?

If the latter - you should quote the sources on which you rely.>>

We are not in a court of law. There is no judge to say whether my opinions are valid or not. You chose to push a case in a public forum. Whether I am or am not a lawyer is completely irrelevant. National commitments although legal instruments are made with the consent of the people of the jurisdiction which made those commitments. I am a citizen of the United States, and I make the judgment that my previous presidents were wrong in making any commitment that would preserve the settlements.

As you have often pointed out the matter of the legality of the settlements has not been adjudicated. Since they have not been adjudicated the prohibition against settlements in territory occupied by military action remains in force. Israel has not sought such an adjudication, but you argue that the question of the settlements is unresolved because it hasn't been. That is arguing to win a case not to seek justice.

if you wish to argue with another lawyer then bring whatever case you have to a court of law.

If you wish to argue in a journal of public opinion then accept where you are. Your statement that you are dealing with facts, and I am not is putting me down. I object strongly. Eventually, in a democratic state sovereignty resides with the people, and I am one of them.

International commitments often determine whether a country is at peace or at war. My concern as a citizen of the United States is that preserving or condoning the settlements makes war more likely.

#davidf

The indisputable facts are that:
1. President Bush made written commitments to Prime Minister Sharon by letter dated 14 April 2004.
2. Those written commitments were overwhelmingly endorsed endorsed by the House of Representatives 407-9 on 23 June 2004 and the Senate 95-3 the next day

My article states that these written commitments:
"cannot be unilaterally revoked or varied – if America is to retain any international credibility for honouring agreements it makes with other States."

You apparently favour these commitments being shredded. That is your prerogative.

I am more interested in seeing whether President Obama is of the same view. He needs to be as frank and open as you.

On one thing we can surely agree - President Obama's decision carries far more weight and has greater consequences for America and its conduct of foreign policy in its dealings with other States than your opinion.

President Obama needs to answer one question - does he intend honouring the Bush Congress-endorsed letter or not?

As a concerned American citizen - why don't you take the trouble to write to the President to find out - whilst giving him your reasons as to why he should repudiate the Bush commitments?

Dear David Singer,

You are a propagandist for the state of Israel. That is a legal activity, and I do not challenge your right to act in such a manner. Graham Young has given you a platform on which to act as a propagandist. I merely act on my right to challenge some of your statements.

When I challenge your statements you put on your lawyer hat and question my legal background. I don't have to have a legal background to question you.

We probably agree that I have a right to question any activity of my government. That is the prerogative of a citizen in a democratic country.

I agree that President Obama's decision carries far more weight and has greater consequences for America and its conduct of foreign policy in its dealings with other States than my opinion. However, he is a representative of the US population and should consider their opinions when he makes such a decision.

I have written President Obama on several occasions on different matters and get a form letter in reply if I get a reply. I will write to my congressman. If he has constituents who agree with me he may bring up the matter.

I wish you good health.