Another David

The process of unmasking Ben DR and Ben David as one and the same person using two nom de plumes occurred over a series of comments posted by whoever this person is to articles written by me and published on JWire and On Line Opinion.

You can read the extensive posts by this gentleman and my responses by following these links:

1. http://www.jwire.com.au/featured-articles/palestine-clintons-500000-speech-leaves-one-speechless-writes-david-singer/35247#comments
Beginning June 23 until 27 June under name Ben David

2. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15164&page=0
Beginning 27 June and continuing until 7 July under name Ben DR

3. http://www.jwire.com.au/featured-articles/palestine-the-bi-national-state-that-can-work-writes-david-singer/35451#comments
Beginning 5 July to 8 July under name Ben David

This gentleman professes to be Jewish and to be an international law expert. You would think he would be prepared to identify himself so one could gauge what weight could be given to his views.

Enjoy reading the exchanges – if you have the time.

Thanks for your interest.

“”On Sunday, the popular Israel Today newspaper reported that hundreds of legal experts are drafting a document to reply to the EU boycott. The legal response will reportedly outline how the so-called Jewish settlements are not illegal and that the term “occupied” does not apply to those territories.”

I later read (early August), they finally produced a “mammoth” report.

The above is a cover letter from a “mammoth” report compiled by a huge team of jurists. Get the facts right please. Do you think Ashton would read such a lengthy report?

But I do encourage you to read the report.

Also, I am surprised you have so much faith in the ICJ. Why is it so sacrosanct?

Are all courts ever entirely “neutral”.

“This includes the 1922 San Remo Declaration unanimously adopted by the League of Nations”

San Remo Declaration was April, 25 1920, endorsed in the Council of League’s Mandate for Palestine, July 1922. Matters of fact are important, especially when it comes to law!! The smallest error of fact can undermine credibility.

As far as the ICRC is concerned, in a recent speech in 2010 by their Director of International Law, we read:
“There can therefore be no doubt that the decision to draft the Geneva Conventions of 1949 was sealed by the tragedy of the Second World War and that the conventions were intended to fill the gaps in international humanitarian law exposed by the conflict.”

http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/statement/geneva-conventions-statement-120809.htm

There is so much that can and has be said on this subject, I’m not sure it easily lends itself to Comments on a web page.

I’d recommend that if folks are interested, they can start with Howard Grief’s Ashkelon speech, 2010, in which inter. alia., he also identifies Israel’s numerous examples of shooting itself in the foot, with its own misinterpretations of International Law, giving its opponents much ammunition.

Being a lecture, it’s easier to read than a scholarly article (of which there are many, including by him).
“THE RIGHTS OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE OVER THE LAND OF ISRAEL UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW”

http://www.think-israel.org/grief.sanremospeech.html

My own summary of the International Law on this matter can be found here, on JWire:

http://www.jwire.com.au/featured-articles/palestine-the-unending-conflict-part-2-writes-george-peters/36059

As a “teaser” I have sought to use customary and prevailing International Law to arrive at the following conclusions:

“In summary, we must forever abandon the following popular myths, misconceptions and fabrications:

1. The UN never “created” the State of Israel.
2. The so-called Occupied Territories were illegally seized. and then captured by Israel, after two (2) illegal wars of aggression. They have been returned to their rightful owner as per the League Mandate for Palestine. Under prevailing International Law, they do not fit the criteria of Occupied Territory. Israel is in possession of no Occupied Territory.
3. As a logical corollary of the above, there being no Occupied Territories, then can be no such thing as “Illegal Settlements”.
4. Israel has never violated the 4th Geneva Convention (in any case, an inapplicable Convention).

Finally, as a result of looking at these Primary sources – in addition to Secondary historical sources,

4. There is no legal basis whatsoever for a second Arab State in former British Mandatory Palestine (Jordan being the first). ”

Thank you.

David,

I like your hard-hitting invective. Some background to this tussle you have been having with ‘Ben David’ would help to bring other interested parties into the picture.

Ben David

We have been through your claims some months ago.

My last response to you dated 8 July remains unanswered.

Here it is:

“Thank you for admitting you use two different anonymous names to post on different sites. Given your admission that you also changed a quote by Professor Scobbie – I don’t wish to engage in any further correspondence with you.

Is that the kind of conduct a lawyer should engage in? No wonder you don’t want to identify yourself publicly. Maybe you are not even a lawyer or even Jewish as you claim to be.

Does all wisdom reside in BEN DR and Ben David ( and maybe any other names you might use) to denigrate the opinions of others like Rostow, Riebenfeld , Stone, Greif, Levy, Baker and Kaplan,because they are Zionists, Jews and perhaps even live in the West Bank?

Does that give me the license to criticise the opinions of Berman, Scobbie and yourself because you are anti-Zionists who do not believe the Jews are legally entitled to their own State in their biblical and ancestral homeland?

My position on the Mandate and article 80 (supported also by the ICJ in the SWA case as I have quoted to you) remains unchanged and still applicable in 2013.

You have failed to specify the date when those rights were ended.

The experts you produced – Scobbie and Berman – have not directly addressed the issue of The Mandate and article 80. Your attempt to claim they have in an indirect and round about manner is rejected.

You have failed to produce any expert lawyer who has addressed the issue directly and come to a different conclusion.

Just remember that any case only goes to Court because there are two different legal opinions – only one of which will prevail.

it is a pity you didn’t leave OLO when you said you would (do lawyers go back on their undertakings as well?)

Stick to your opinion if you will because I will stick to mine until a Court decides that the rights conferred on the Jewish people by article 6 of the Mandate and article 80 of the UN Charter have been extinguished and no longer apply.”

I am pleased to see that 1000 jurists have now had their say to confirm the right of Jews to live in the West Bank under article 6 of the Mandate and article 80 of the UN Charter.

That no doubt must be very galling for you.

However, the truth is that against an unequivocal and unanimous 100 pg opinion from the highest court on the planet (ICJ) plus lengthier well researched academic papers from legal experts who have spent years writing about this (including the views of many respected Israeli and Australian lawyers), a 2 pager from nameless lawyers repeating the same tired and discredited arguments is unlikely to persuade Carr, Kerry, the EU and the UK one iota.

There are so many inaccuracies in the letter, but the idea advanced that the ICRC Commentary somehow supports the settler movement is laughable. Firstly, the ICRC have themselves consistently criticized the settlements. Secondly many writers have convincingly discredited the notion that Art 49(6) of GC and the ICRC commentary only applies to deportations and displacement. There is, in fact, not a word in the Art that limits its application in this way, yet settlers have grasped at this feeble straw for decades.

Carr will politely reject the letter, and rightly so.