D: "In another version of this paper available at Northwestern University School of Law Public Law and Legal Theory Series No. 06-34 D`Amato changed his wording to say that Britain abstained rather than voted in its favor, so clearly it was an error, he recognized it later, and changed it." It is a distinction without a difference, my friend, but I agree that he changed the wording. The change in the wording did not change the legal import of what he is claiming, and so can not be used to discredit his conclusions. Precisely because - as I pointed out in my post #170 - a British ABSTENTION has the same legal effect as a British VOTE IN FAVOR i.e. both signify that the Mandatory accepts the Partition Plan. Your casual wish to consign the article to the bin is laughable; why not argue why that "change" invalidates the conclusions? Or are you going to trawl the internet to find ways of discrediting the MAN, and not the ARGUMENT?
Labor court orders Jerusalem light rail operators to return to work (Haaretz)
from the article: First, evacuate the outposts