Government Committee: says 'Israel not occupation force'

[Reffo]

I do understand that. There are two separate issues. First, let's recall we're talking about international law, not domestic law. Property rights exist under domestic law, but are PROTECTED under international human rights law. So we need to look at what international human rights law has to say. Under various international instruments to which Israel is a signatory, the right to property is protected. That means that these individuals (who were expelled) who have had their rights violated are entitled to a remedy. If they lived on crown lands which are now under Jordanian occupation, they have property rights over those lands (as we were saying earlier, full ownership is not the only kind of recognised property right under any reasonable system of property law). So, to that extent, many Palestinians will still be 'caught' in the scope of the right to property and their return would not violation art 49(6).

A second aspect of international human rights law, affirmed in the universal declaration of human rights, international covenant on civil and political rights, and others, is the right to return to one's own country (this is what the Palestinians incorrectly try to base their right of return on). I suspect that, as a result, if a Palestinian lived on private land and was expelled, then Jordan took over the West Bank but FAILED to recover the private Palestinian land in question, the individual might still reasonably have a right to return to the West Bank under these rules without violating art 49(6)

Without accepting or disputing both of the aspects that (one and two) that you listed, I have a problem with your answer. In two words: You are NOT CONSISTENT with your interpretation of international laws.

With the Israeli population, you claim that their previous international rights (as stated by the League of Nations and ratified by the UN) get negated by the fact that Israel gets labelled as an occupier following a defensive war.

However, your standard changes when the shoe is on the other foot and Jordan allows it's population to move to the West Bank. I hear what you say that according to International laws, they may have a claim. But why don't those laws get negated by the fact that Jordan would be considered an occupier? If you are negating other relevant international laws that are relevant to the Israeli population because you see them as occupiers, then why don't you apply the sane standards to the Jordanian population, who under my scenario would also be occupiers?

Seems like you apply double standards curlyg.

[Reffo]

It's true that Article 80 of the UNC specifically sought to preserve the mandates created under the LoN system -- and the Palestine mandate clearly survived the LoN. Nobody is claiming that it did not, since clearly Britain continued to administer the territory as its mandatory power and considered itself bound by the mandate instrument. For so long as that state of affairs persisted and the mandate remained, the mandate instrument was in force. But it makes very little sense to claim that it is still in force TODAY, now that the mandate is terminated

You keep on asserting that but you don't back your assertions by any plausible reason/s.

Yes the British Mandate is dead. But it's mandate was nothing but a trust from the League of Nations and they were formulated even before Britain took up the Mandate. Equally, after Britain walked away from the Mandate, the Articles of the trust were ratified by the UN and they survived. In fact, those articles will only terminate once all the lands of Palestine will be under the rule of one or more legitimate and recognized sovereign powers. That's why those articles were superceded by Israeli laws in Israel proper. But while the West Bank is still not under the rule of a legitimate recognized sovereign power (Israel is not laying a claim on the entire West Bank and it will only claim parts of it - probably the lands with the main settlement blocks), that's why the laws of the British Mandate (which was originally a trust) are the only relevant international laws that apply to the West Bank.

But again, let's take at face value all of these arguments you're making (mind you I dispute them as I've made clear at every step) -- so let's concede as Stone and Rostow claim that Israel has the sovereign title to the West Bank,

That is not what Rostow and Stone claim. They claim that according to the trust set out by the League of Nations, the Jewish people have a right to settle on all the lands of Palestine, including the West Bank.

“Whereas recognition has been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.”

That need not mean that the entirety of Palestine would be a Jewish homeland. It does mean though that all areas settled by Jews would be part of the Jewish homeland.

and therefore ...

That's why the rest of what you wrote in that post is not relevant ...

[Reffo]

Come on Reffo. We know exactly why Israel isn't going to annex the West Bank and offer the Arabs there citizenship. It would be the end of Israel as a Jewish state to absorb such a large Arab population. And so Israel tries to tread this line - of being a sovereign when it wants to, when it can help to justify settlements, and being an occupying power when it wants to, when it serves its security and strategic interests. You can't have it both ways. If you're not the occupying power, you can't claim the privileges of an occupying power. You can't confiscate property on the grounds of military necessity - this is the prerogative of an occupying power, but in the absence of an occupation it is a violation of the right to property guaranteed under international law. If Israel wants to be regarded as the legitimate sovereign, it needs to face some pretty serious questions -- for one, why are you administering part of your territory under military rule, with serious curtailments of individual rights, and part of your territory as a democracy? This would probably violate so many rules of international human rights law I dare not even start thinking about it. That's why Israel doesn't claim the territory - if it did, it would have to start behaving as though this territory actually belonged to it, and that would be the end of Israel

Bingo, curlyg. Most Israelis only want the lands that the settlements are on to be part of Israel. I thought that's what you were talkng about when you brought up the question of annexation. That's why I answered the way that I did.

As for the rest of your post, remember Oslo, Areas A, B and C each of which have been governed under a different process. Most of the areas where Palestinian Arabs live are under their own civil administration.

[Reffo]

the military commander is authorized – by the international law applicable to an area under belligerent occupation – to take possession of land, if this is necessary for the needs of the army

This was your quote of the Israeli high court ruling in relation to the security fence.

The only way that I can think of answering this is that when the Geneva Conventions were being formulated, they could not possibly envisage scenarios like Palestine. They formulated their rules based on the idea that the only conclicts are between nation states each of which are neatly divided by historically recognized borders. I ask you curlyg, is that the neat scenario of Palestine? Clearly NOT!

The way I see it, rightly or wrongly, is that the Palestinian Arabs are clearly under occupation. This includes the privately owned lands that they live on. As for the rest of the West Bank, the crown lands? I agree with the various Israeli governments classifications of those crown lands. They are disputed lands. That of course does not necessarily mean that all the disputed lands would end up as part of Israel or part of an Arab state for that matter. It means, that they will end up according to whatever the parties manage to agree upon through negotiations. This is clearly inline with UN Security Council Resolution 242. To negotiate borders that would be secure and recognized.

Of course, according to the Geneva Conventions, that is too nuanced. It only recognizes the more black and white scenarios that I mentioned above. That's why many of the judges and scholars come up with the nonsensical interpretations that I managed to highlight. Nonsensical, because they lead to anomalies and unjust outcomes (involving double standards) of which I demonstrated at least a couple of times. All that leads me to say that I agree with those who have advocated the revision of the Geneva Conventions to allow them to cover modern day scenarios such as the one that exists in Palestine. But of course that's when politics come into it. And that of ourse leads to paralysis. Oh, and that's why I dismiss the conclusions of those judges because they try to fit a square peg into a round hole. They choose to be simplistic and insist on using laws that are not applicable to the situation. A more honest way would be for them to come out and admit that fact and insist that the international community should get together and update it's laws. But even if they can't bring that about, they should at least take the trouble to take heed of the points that their fellow scholars make about the anomalies that their rulings create. Be more vocal about it instead of being smug and self satisfied about the nonsensical outcomes that they are helping to create. Today it bites Israel but tomorrow it will bite other countries too because, make no mistake about it, that's how the rule of law works. It is based on precedents. And what bites Israel today, will bite other countries tomorrow, based on the same precedents that they are inflicting on Israel today!

[Reffo]

Why aren't Palestinians able to move to Israel under the right of return if they would be able to move to the West Bank under the same concept? I've read this analysis by Eyal Benvenisti and as far as my layman knowledge of international law goes it makes sense, but I'm finding it hard to do the jump to the case in which Palestinians try to move to the West Bank from Jordan

Especially if the Palestinian Arabs in question have Jordanian citizenship which was the case in my scenario.

[Reffo]

curlyg

After reviewing our posts, it became obvious to me that ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS why you and I disagree about the legality of Jewish settlements in the West Bank is because you don't accept Rostow's argument that Jews, like Palestinian Arabs BOTH have a right to settle anywhere in Palestine, including the West Bank.

The Jews derive that right from a decision made by the League of Nations that Palestine is earmarked as the homeland of the Jewish people. Here, I'll reproduce the quote that I gave you earlier in this thread in my post #66, which also gives you a link:

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country;

The League of Nations, empowered Great Britain, to bring that about. They gave them a mandate to carry out that responsibility.So far I believe you and I agree about those facts. But we part company from the point where Britain decided to walk away from their mandate, in 1948. You claim that once the rule of the British Mandate was finished, that international law which was declared by the League of Nations, became null and void. You actually ridicule the notion that the laws that were administered by the British Mandate can survive the British Mandate, after the demise of the Mandate.

But does your ridicule stand up to scrutiny? Let me give you an analogy which illustrates why it does NOT:If a trustee (an executor) of a will dies before the entire will is finalised, do the conditions of the will die with him? Of course NOT! So why do you claim that just because the British Mandate died, the international law declared by the League of Nations died too?

That difference between us has major implications, as I'll illustrate in the following post ...

[Reffo]

curlyg

The biggest implication is the fact that you have no problems with invoking the fourth Geneva Convention which prohibits population transfer to occupied territories. That's how you justify your belief that the Israeli settlements are illegal.

I, and many like me,on the other hand have major problems with the application of the Geneva conventions about population transfer, in relation to the West Bank. Why? Because essentially what you and like minded people like you say is that by winning a defensive war, in which Israel was attacked, the Israeli population (both Jew and Arab) should be penalised.

Here is how: Before 1967, according to international law, both Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs were legally entitled to settle anywhere in the West Bank, by virtue of that declaration of the League of Nations that I keep on reiterating. But after winning that defensive war and by repelling Jordanian aggression, according to you, the Israeli population lost that right. Why? Because you simplistically label them as occupiers. But how can one be labelled as an occupier of a land to which they too have an internationally recognized right of claim?

[Reffo]

curlyg

I don't doubt your sincerity but I have to say that you have a major blind spot on this topic (and maybe a few others that we discussed before). As an example, when we were discussing that thought experiment, with which you should be very familiar by now, you claimed that NOT ONLY Israeli Jews but Israeli Arabs too are prohibited by the Geneva convention from settling en masse in the West Bank.

Yet in the scenario in which Jordan would become an occupier of crown lands (only) in the West Bank, you claimed that Jordanian citizens of Palestinian origin WOULD be entitled to settle in occupied lands. Why? Because you claimed that they would be returning to lands in which they lived before, even if those crown lands are not the actual lands that they lived in.

But I ask you, what is the difference between Israeli citizens of Palestinian origin and Jordanian citizens of Palestinian origin? After all, Israeli Arabs and many Jews too lived in Palestine before Israel became a separate sovereign state. And you must know too that Jordan itself too was legally part of Palestine prior to 1929. It was known as Eastern Palestine before the British tore it off the rest of Palestine and handed it to the Hashemite Arabs.

[curlyg]

I haven't forgotten about this, I'll be replying in the next few days when I get a chance...

[curlyg]

Why aren't Palestinians able to move to Israel under the right of return if they would be able to move to the West Bank under the same concept? I've read this analysis by Eyal Benvenisti and as far as my layman knowledge of international law goes it makes sense, but I'm finding it hard to do the jump to the case in which Palestinians try to move to the West Bank from Jordan.

Firstly, to be quite up front about this, I'm not really familiar with the intricacies of the right of return debate or the scope of this right. My understanding on the basis of some very preliminary reading is that the right of return is not a right of every individual to return to a place from which they were displaced in conflict, but it is a right not to be denied access to one's own country. If the West Bank is the territorial extent of the space where the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination is to be realised, then it seems much more appropriate to me to regard that as 'their country' for the purpose of the right of return, rather than Israel. But like I said, I can't say that is a carefully studied opinion at this point.

With the Israeli population, you claim that their previous international rights (as stated by the League of Nations and ratified by the UN) get negated by the fact that Israel gets labelled as an occupier following a defensive war.

However, your standard changes when the shoe is on the other foot and Jordan allows it's population to move to the West Bank. I hear what you say that according to International laws, they may have a claim. But why don't those laws get negated by the fact that Jordan would be considered an occupier? If you are negating other relevant international laws that are relevant to the Israeli population because you see them as occupiers, then why don't you apply the sane standards to the Jordanian population, who under my scenario would also be occupiers?

Seems like you apply double standards curlyg.

Two points: firstly, I still don't accept, as you say, that Jews are granted an unlimited positive right to settle anywhere in Palestine under international law. I think that international law was silent on the matter, and what it does not prohibit is permitted. But once the occupation began, some conduct which previously was not prohibited now became prohibited. Secondly, it's self-evident that the law of occupation was not intended to displace international human rights law. It can't be that because a foreign state has taken over your country's territory, your human rights guaranteed under international treaties are now void.

You keep on asserting that but you don't back your assertions by any plausible reason/s.

Yes the British Mandate is dead. But it's mandate was nothing but a trust from the League of Nations and they were formulated even before Britain took up the Mandate. Equally, after Britain walked away from the Mandate, the Articles of the trust were ratified by the UN and they survived. In fact, those articles will only terminate once all the lands of Palestine will be under the rule of one or more legitimate and recognized sovereign powers. That's why those articles were superceded by Israeli laws in Israel proper. But while the West Bank is still not under the rule of a legitimate recognized sovereign power (Israel is not laying a claim on the entire West Bank and it will only claim parts of it - probably the lands with the main settlement blocks), that's why the laws of the British Mandate (which was originally a trust) are the only relevant international laws that apply to the West Bank.

That is not what Rostow and Stone claim. They claim that according to the trust set out by the League of Nations, the Jewish people have a right to settle on all the lands of Palestine, including the West Bank.

That need not mean that the entirety of Palestine would be a Jewish homeland. It does mean though that all areas settled by Jews would be part of the Jewish homeland.

That's why the rest of what you wrote in that post is not relevant ...

I don't know if this is what Stone claims, but I'll take your word for it. I said previously that the argument is bizarre because I genuinely don't understand how you can make it without going through some serious mental gymnastics. You keep repeating that the Mandate was a 'trust' from the League of Nations which remains in force even now that Britain has departed. That just seems meaningless to me. A trust is a legal arrangement whereby something is held by A for the benefit of B. Under the League of Nations mandate, which was preserved in art 80 UNC, the territory of Palestine was held by Britain as trustee for the Jewish people and native Arab population as beneficiaries. Now the trustee is gone, the main beneficiary has already attained independent statehood decades ago, and the entire administration which was the mandate has been terminated. It's meaningless to continue to talk of a trust. The mandate was a specific legal arrangement that has lapsed. The constitutive instrument of that legal arrangement was the mandate instrument -- it was not a treaty, it was a resolution of the LoN which was kept in force during the transition to the UN -- and now that the legal entity which it created no longer exists, it is of no effect. That much is obvious - given that no court has ever applied the mandate instrument in Israel or the Palestinian territories, and many of the provisions of the mandate are continuously violated.

Bingo, curlyg. Most Israelis only want the lands that the settlements are on to be part of Israel. I thought that's what you were talkng about when you brought up the question of annexation. That's why I answered the way that I did.

As for the rest of your post, remember Oslo, Areas A, B and C each of which have been governed under a different process. Most of the areas where Palestinian Arabs live are under their own civil administration.

This doesn't contradict anything that I said. On the contrary, it supports the view that Israel doesn't want to claim the rights of a sovereign over the territory.

This was your quote of the Israeli high court ruling in relation to the security fence.

The only way that I can think of answering this is that when the Geneva Conventions were being formulated, they could not possibly envisage scenarios like Palestine. They formulated their rules based on the idea that the only conclicts are between nation states each of which are neatly divided by historically recognized borders. I ask you curlyg, is that the neat scenario of Palestine? Clearly NOT!

Sometimes problematic scenarios arise, this doesn't mean the law is inapplicable. Complicated and borderline questions of law are inevitable. The drafters of any legislation of treaty often can't envisage every single possible scenario that might arise, that's why laws are drafted in broad general language to capture many possible scenarios and circumstances within their scope. This is especially true of international treaties governing matters such as war and human rights, where it's important to cast the net as widely as possible so that you don't end up in situations where there is a legal vacuum and civilians find themselves without any legal protection.

[curlyg]

The way I see it, rightly or wrongly, is that the Palestinian Arabs are clearly under occupation. This includes the privately owned lands that they live on. As for the rest of the West Bank, the crown lands? I agree with the various Israeli governments classifications of those crown lands. They are disputed lands. That of course does not necessarily mean that all the disputed lands would end up as part of Israel or part of an Arab state for that matter. It means, that they will end up according to whatever the parties manage to agree upon through negotiations. This is clearly inline with UN Security Council Resolution 242. To negotiate borders that would be secure and recognised.

Of course, according to the Geneva Conventions, that is too nuanced. It only recognizes the more black and white scenarios that I mentioned above. That's why many of the judges and scholars come up with the nonsensical interpretations that I managed to highlight. Nonsensical, because they lead to anomalies and unjust outcomes (involving double standards) of which I demonstrated at least a couple of times. All that leads me to say that I agree with those who have advocated the revision of the Geneva Conventions to allow them to cover modern day scenarios such as the one that exists in Palestine. But of course that's when politics come into it. And that of ourse leads to paralysis. Oh, and that's why I dismiss the conclusions of those judges because they try to fit a square peg into a round hole. They choose to be simplistic and insist on using laws that are not applicable to the situation. A more honest way would be for them to come out and admit that fact and insist that the international community should get together and update it's laws. But even if they can't bring that about, they should at least take the trouble to take heed of the points that their fellow scholars make about the anomalies that their rulings create. Be more vocal about it instead of being smug and self satisfied about the nonsensical outcomes that they are helping to create. Today it bites Israel but tomorrow it will bite other countries too because, make no mistake about it, that's how the rule of law works. It is based on precedents. And what bites Israel today, will bite other countries tomorrow, based on the same precedents that they are inflicting on Israel today!

"Disputed lands" is a correct description - there are many 'disputed' territories all over the world. When two people sue each other in a domestic court over property, this is because they each claim conflicting rights over the property, and therefore the property is 'disputed.' 'Disputed lands' is not a legal characterisation though, it is a statement of fact. The land is disputed in that there are multiple claimants. This does not change the fact that one of those claimants has better rights than another, and this is what a court of law is meant to determine in order to resolve the dispute. The same is true of the territories. Of course they are disputed, and of course negotiations will take place. But beneath the dispute, at law, one of the claimants has a better right to the territory. That is what we have been discussing as regards occupation vs sovereignty.

curlyg

After reviewing our posts, it became obvious to me that ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS why you and I disagree about the legality of Jewish settlements in the West Bank is because you don't accept Rostow's argument that Jews, like Palestinian Arabs BOTH have a right to settle anywhere in Palestine, including the West Bank.

The Jews derive that right from a decision made by the League of Nations that Palestine is earmarked as the homeland of the Jewish people. Here, I'll reproduce the quote that I gave you earlier in this thread in my post #66, which also gives you a link:



The League of Nations, empowered Great Britain, to bring that about. They gave them a mandate to carry out that responsibility.So far I believe you and I agree about those facts. But we part company from the point where Britain decided to walk away from their mandate, in 1948. You claim that once the rule of the British Mandate was finished, that international law which was declared by the League of Nations, became null and void. You actually ridicule the notion that the laws that were administered by the British Mandate can survive the British Mandate, after the demise of the Mandate.

But does your ridicule stand up to scrutiny? Let me give you an analogy which illustrates why it does NOT:If a trustee (an executor) of a will dies before the entire will is finalised, do the conditions of the will die with him? Of course NOT! So why do you claim that just because the British Mandate died, the international law declared by the League of Nations died too?

That difference between us has major implications, as I'll illustrate in the following post ...

As I've indicated, I consider that the mandate has ended. There are multiple reasons for that as I already said - that the primary purpose of the mandate has already been realised (the establishment of 'a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine'), that the mandatory power terminated the mandate, that no court of law has regarded the mandate instrument as binding since, etc. The only basis you have for making this argument are the writings of Rostow, but ultimately it makes very little sense to me given what I've said. The Mandate instrument was not a treaty that could outlive the mandate, it was an instrument designed to govern a specific legal regime, and primarily it imposed obligations on Great Britain as the mandatory power, if you look at the text of the mandate virtually every article contains obligatory language directed at the "mandatory power". I think of it as being analogous to the constitution of a state that no longer exists, which you assert to be binding on a successor state.

curlyg

The biggest implication is the fact that you have no problems with invoking the fourth Geneva Convention which prohibits population transfer to occupied territories. That's how you justify your belief that the Israeli settlements are illegal.

I, and many like me,on the other hand have major problems with the application of the Geneva conventions about population transfer, in relation to the West Bank. Why? Because essentially what you and like minded people like you say is that by winning a defensive war, in which Israel was attacked, the Israeli population (both Jew and Arab) should be penalised.

Here is how: Before 1967, according to international law, both Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs were legally entitled to settle anywhere in the West Bank, by virtue of that declaration of the League of Nations that I keep on reiterating. But after winning that defensive war and by repelling Jordanian aggression, according to you, the Israeli population lost that right. Why? Because you simplistically label them as occupiers. But how can one be labelled as an occupier of a land to which they too have an internationally recognized right of claim?

You said yourself, just two posts ago, that the West Bank is occupied territory for better or worse. I quote, "the way I see it, rightly or wrongly, is that the Palestinian Arabs are clearly under occupation."

It's hardly as strange as you are making it seem. Consider an example: right now, there is nothing under international law that prohibits Chinese people from living in the United States. All a Chinese person need do is comply with American immigration law, and they can freely live in that country. Now suppose that for some reason, the United States launches a military strike against China on the basis of some mistaken intelligence, and China by some accident of circumstance manages to defeat and occupy the United States. China has acquired the territory of the United States by a purely defensive war against an act of aggression through no fault of its own. Now, previously international law did not prohibit Chinese from settling in the US, whereas now they are prohibited. Why? Because China is in a position of power which it did not have before, and it may take advantage of that new position to alter the fundamental character of the US to its own advantage, for example, by settling large numbers of Chinese citizens in certain parts of the territory to shore up its control of them for the long-term future. The fact that China came into possession of the territory by a purely innocent and defensive war is irrelevant when it comes to the application of the law of occupation. They are abusing their position as an occupying power to effect changes to the territory which are inconsistent with their new status. It is unfortunate for Chinese who previously had a right to settle in the US as they pleased, but for so long as their country remains an occupying power, they can't continue as though nothing has changed.

[curlyg]

curlyg

I don't doubt your sincerity but I have to say that you have a major blind spot on this topic (and maybe a few others that we discussed before). As an example, when we were discussing that thought experiment, with which you should be very familiar by now, you claimed that NOT ONLY Israeli Jews but Israeli Arabs too are prohibited by the Geneva convention from settling en masse in the West Bank.

Yet in the scenario in which Jordan would become an occupier of crown lands (only) in the West Bank, you claimed that Jordanian citizens of Palestinian origin WOULD be entitled to settle in occupied lands. Why? Because you claimed that they would be returning to lands in which they lived before, even if those crown lands are not the actual lands that they lived in.

But I ask you, what is the difference between Israeli citizens of Palestinian origin and Jordanian citizens of Palestinian origin? After all, Israeli Arabs and many Jews too lived in Palestine before Israel became a separate sovereign state. And you must know too that Jordan itself too was legally part of Palestine prior to 1929. It was known as Eastern Palestine before the British tore it off the rest of Palestine and handed it to the Hashemite Arabs.

I think I addressed this point under my very brief discussion of the 'right of return'.

[Reffo]

This doesn't contradict anything that I said. On the contrary, it supports the view that Israel doesn't want to claim the rights of a sovereign over the territory

... and? Really, I don't feel I have an obligation to contradict EVERYTHING that you say. Only most things .... No, just kidding Only the the things that you say that I disagree with.

[Reffo]

You said yourself, just two posts ago, that the West Bank is occupied territory for better or worse. I quote, "the way I see it, rightly or wrongly, is that the Palestinian Arabs are clearly under occupation."

curlyg, please read again what I really said and try and understand it.

I said, that the Palestinian Arabs and the lands that they actually own privately are clearly under occupation. The rest of the lands in the West Bank, the crown lands are disputed lands. And I agree with Israel's position that those disputed lands cannot be considered to be under occupation.

[Reffo]

I said previously that the argument is bizarre because I genuinely don't understand how you can make it without going through some serious mental gymnastics

curlyg, I really do believe that you have a blind spot on this issue.

You keep repeating that the Mandate was a 'trust' from the League of Nations which remains in force even now that Britain has departed. That just seems meaningless to me

Like I said, you have a blind spot.

A trust is a legal arrangement whereby something is held by A for the benefit of B

Spot on, we agree on this at least.

Under the League of Nations mandate, which was preserved in art 80 UNC, the territory of Palestine was held by Britain as trustee for the Jewish people and native Arab population as beneficiaries

We agree on this too.

Now the trustee is gone, the main beneficiary has already attained independent statehood decades ago,

I assume you call Israel the main beneficiary. If you do then we agree about that too. But where our views start to diverge, is the item in bold.

If Israel attained statehood decades ago, then you might be able to define Israel's borders for me? I bet you can't. The most that you would be able to point to are the 1949 armistice lines. But armistice lines are NOT recognized borders are they?

In fact, every international document that refers to Palestine/Israel, talks about the need to negotiate, define and agree on SECURE and RECOGNIZED borders. The 1949 armistice agreement talks about it, UN Security Council Resolution 242 talks about it, The Road Map talks about it. Yet although there were numerous attempts to resolve this issue, they all failed. There are no recognized borders. Just because Britain, the trustee has threw up it's arms in the air, declared it all too hard and walked away from the trusteeship (it's mandate), it does NOT mean that the will of the League of Nations was discharged.

I am sorry that you can't see that simple logic curlyg, I'll say it again, you seem to have a blind spot about it. And I think it stems from the fact that you are desperate to see that the Palestinian Arabs should get their piece of "the cake" too. You seem to think that "the settlements" will prevent them from getting it. But nothing is further from the truth. The Palestinians could have their state, Israel could keep most of their "settlements" and the League of Nations trust will only terminate when full agreements will be reached between the parties, culminating in a signed peace deal which will define the borders of the Jewish and Arab states. Ony then will the trust of the League of Nations be discharged and the lands will cease to be disputed lands.

and the entire administration which was the mandate has been terminated. It's meaningless to continue to talk of a trust. The mandate was a specific legal arrangement that has lapsed. The constitutive instrument of that legal arrangement was the mandate instrument -- it was not a treaty, it was a resolution of the LoN which was kept in force during the transition to the UN -- and now that the legal entity which it created no longer exists, it is of no effect. That much is obvious - given that no court has ever applied the mandate instrument in Israel or the Palestinian territories, and many of the provisions of the mandate are continuously violated

No, curlyg, you really have got this wrong. Since the resolution of the League of Nations never got fully implemented, it obviously could not possibly have been discharged.

Going back to your "Trust" example: until the will of the trust gets fully executed, not just partially, the trust is not deemed to be discharged. Even if the trustee (the 'A' party) walks away from his/her/it's responsibilities.