#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?