Singer: "Put up some facts man or butt out."

I did, the settlements are illegal under international law, international law says so, whether you agree or not.

Article 80 was superseded by the UN, who clearly marked out that territory which was to become Israel, and it did not include any of the West Bank. It guarantees Israel nothing.

I meant to say any decision by the League of Nations, whose edicts were not binding by law, was superseded by the UN Partition Plan for Palestine, adopted by the UN on 29 November 1947.

#Emperor Julian

You state:

"It was constituted (sort of) - not REconstituted - by a shonky edict written entirely by foreigners - an extension of a colonial "Declaration" from the long defunct British Empire. Palestinians have NEVER been even peripherally involved in decisions giving their homeland to foreign terrorists. The result is a lot more than a "Jewish National (sic) Home" it's a STATE"

My response:

1. The correct term is "REconstituted" - the preamble to the Mandate for Palestine stating:
"Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for REconstituting their national home in that country;"

2. You ignore or deceptively mislead in attempting to cover up the Correspondence with the Palestine Arab Delegation and the Zionist Organisation presented to the British Parliament
https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/48A7E5584EE1403485256CD8006C3FBE
This correspondence debunks your claim that "Palestinians have NEVER been even peripherally involved in decisions giving their homeland to foreign terrorists"

3. You ignore or deceptively mislead in attempting to cover up the findings of the 1937 Peel Commission (pages 33 - 34) - quoted in my response to #imajulianutter on 10 June 2014 at 5:54:38.

"This definition of the National Home {in the White Paper} has been sometimes taken to preclude the establishment of a Jewish State. But, though the phraseology was clearly intended to conciliate, as far as might be, Arab antagonism to the National Home, there is nothing in it to prohibit the ultimate establishment of a Jewish State, and Mr. Churchill himself has told us in evidence that no such prohibition was intended."

Click on the following link to read what the Peel Commission said in further answer to this bogus claim by you:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16375&page=4

You are not forming your opinions on the 100 years old Jewish-Arab conflict from documents that clearly rebut and refute your unsubstantiated one sentence throwaways.

You are relying on false and misleading Arab propaganda that has radicalised and brainwashed you.

You can now add "intellectual fraudster" or "innocent dupe of Arab propaganda" to "law breaker" and "Jew-hater" in your CV.

#Billyd

You make the following claim:

"Article 80 was superseded by the UN, who clearly marked out that territory which was to become Israel, and it did not include any of the West Bank. It guarantees Israel nothing."

My response:

Article 80 is still in the UN Charter today and it requires compliance by all Member States - as Article 4 (1) states:
"Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations."

The vested rights of the Jewish people created by the 1922 Mandate for Palestine in Judea and Samaria (West Bank) and Gaza remain alive and kicking in 2016 under article 80 of the UN Charter.

You omit to state that the UN Plan was accepted by the Jews but rejected by the Arabs in November 1947 and that such rejection was confirmed when six Arab armies invaded Western Palestine in May 1948.

Why would you do this? Was it deliberate on your part or did you not know about these very important facts?

#Billyd

You make the following further claim:

"I meant to say any decision by the League of Nations, whose edicts were not binding by law, was superseded by the UN Partition Plan for Palestine, adopted by the UN on 29 November 1947."

My response:

You fail to understand that article 80 was inserted in the UN Charter precisely to counter claims like yours that the rights vested in the Jewish people by the League of Nations terminated with the League's demise and the establishment of the United Nations.

The Mandate for Palestine's "edicts" are binding in international law - just as the Mandate for Syria and Lebanon's edicts and the Mandate for Mesopotamia's edicts are binding in international law - as indeed any "edicts" declared by the League of Nations during its existence.

You obviously rely on unsubstantiated throwaway statements in the PLO Covenant and Hamas Charter declaring null and void all international law concerning Palestine made since the Balfour Declaration.

The Arabs have never accepted the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine - as was their prerogative to do. But such rejection does not negate the Mandate's binding validity in international law - vesting legal rights in the Jewish people to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in Palestine.

Had the Arabs accepted the Mandate in 1922 establishing one homeland in 77% of Palestine for the Arabs and one homeland within 23% of Palestine for the Jews - the world could have been spared the following 95 years of conflict.

Indeed this two-state solution is once again looming as the only solution to end that conflict. The Arabs would be well advised to accept such a proposal to allow direct negotiations between Israel and Jordan to finally resolve this long running conflict.

Again you fail to mention that the UN Plan was accepted by the Jews and rejected by the Arabs. Why?

You expose yourself as just another radicalised and brainwashed victim of Arab propaganda - believing that if you repeat lies often enough they will eventually become accepted as truth.