The case for palestine: An international law perspective

Discussion in 'Israel and Palestine' started by P F Tinmore, Nov 18, 2011.

  1. P F Tinmore
    Offline

    P F Tinmore Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2009
    Messages:
    34,658
    Thanks Received:
    1,700
    Trophy Points:
    1,080
    Ratings:
    +2,927
    International law, in the sense of having any substantial impact on the actions of great powers or developments on the ground in the Israeli-Palestinian theater, has for decades proven almost totally irrelevant. Foreign powers, and local and regional actors alike, have consistently ignored, resisted, violated or condemned international legitimacy. Quigley is fully cognizant of this, and candidly admits that “most writers on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict find an emphasis on legal entitlement to be unrealistic, even counterproductive” (p.xii). Nevertheless, he asserts that he remains convinced that a peace “not based on justice may turn out to be no peace at all” (p.xii). Precisely so. But in this Age of Terror, with an American administration apparently unimpressed by international legitimacy and evidently committed to an almost endless war against al Qaa’ida, can Professor Quigley realistically expect even a modicum of deference to the prescriptions of international law? The fact that international legitimacy overwhelmingly supports the Palestinian rather than the Israeli case makes any application or enforcement of it difficult to imagine.

    The Case for PalestineL An International Law Perspective.
     
  2. JStone
    Offline

    JStone BANNED

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2011
    Messages:
    13,374
    Thanks Received:
    247
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +258
    Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz: A Palestinian State Must Be Rejected
     
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2011
  3. P F Tinmore
    Offline

    P F Tinmore Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2009
    Messages:
    34,658
    Thanks Received:
    1,700
    Trophy Points:
    1,080
    Ratings:
    +2,927
    Dershoputz:eusa_liar::cuckoo::lol::lol::lol:
     
  4. JStone
    Offline

    JStone BANNED

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2011
    Messages:
    13,374
    Thanks Received:
    247
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +258
    What are your credentials? You aren't able to even achieve 1 rep point on a message board.

     
  5. P F Tinmore
    Offline

    P F Tinmore Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2009
    Messages:
    34,658
    Thanks Received:
    1,700
    Trophy Points:
    1,080
    Ratings:
    +2,927
    I used to really like Dershowitz but he has gone to crap in his old age.
     
  6. docmauser1
    Offline

    docmauser1 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2010
    Messages:
    7,274
    Thanks Received:
    693
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Ratings:
    +1,176
    Ah! The usual suspect, Antony T. Sullivan and his bullshiteria. In words of Nawab Agha and Salim Mansur, describing him, "Antony T. Sullivan was a supporter of Sami Al-Arian (Palestinian Islamic Jihad) and is an inveterate apologist for radical Islam as a Middle East studies specialist.", and his shop "The Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy (CSID) is a Washington-based think tank that professes to support moderate Islam, with a target audience primarily in the U.S. Government. ... Put simply, CSID is a front for some of the most obnoxious members of the "Wahhabi lobby" in America."
     
  7. docmauser1
    Offline

    docmauser1 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2010
    Messages:
    7,274
    Thanks Received:
    693
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Ratings:
    +1,176
    Ah! The usual suspect, Antony T. Sullivan and his bullshiteria. In words of Nawab Agha and Salim Mansur, describing him, "Antony T. Sullivan was a supporter of Sami Al-Arian (Palestinian Islamic Jihad) and is an inveterate apologist for radical Islam as a Middle East studies specialist.", and his shop "The Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy (CSID) is a Washington-based think tank that professes to support moderate Islam, with a target audience primarily in the U.S. Government. ... Put simply, CSID is a front for some of the most obnoxious members of the "Wahhabi lobby" in America."
     
  8. JStone
    Offline

    JStone BANNED

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2011
    Messages:
    13,374
    Thanks Received:
    247
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +258
    Since the Romans created "Palestina," let's send the so-called Palestinians to Italy. They are Italian, right?
     
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2011
  9. JStone
    Offline

    JStone BANNED

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2011
    Messages:
    13,374
    Thanks Received:
    247
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +258
    Can anyone name the capital of the "nation" of "Palestine" No? Prolly, because there has never been a nation of Palestine. :lol:

    Amir Taheri: Palestine Is Not A Nation http://www.asharq-e.com/news.asp?section=2&id=26840

    A recent creation, the modern state is the political expression of a nation’s existence. One must first have a nation and then look for a state to express its existence. Is Palestine a nation, in the modern sense of the term as described by Herder at the end of the 18th century? You might be surprised, even angered, by this question. However, none of the dozens of political parties that have claimed to represent the Palestinians in the past seven decades ever described itself as national. Words such as “nation” and “national” do not feature in the designation of such movements as Al Fatah and Hamas. Instead, they, and many other smaller ones, use adjectives such as “Islamic” or “people’s”. The subtext is that the Palestinians are, at most, “a people” but not a nation. They are regarded as part either of a larger, and mythical, Arab “nation” or an even more problematic Islamic Ummah.

    Wedded to leftist or Islamist ideologies, Palestinian political formations systematically rejected the concept of the nation, the backbone of modern statehood.The contrast with modern national liberation movements throughout the world is telling. For all of them the word “nation” is the key to their identity. Thus, we have the African National Congress in South Africa, and the National Liberation Front (FLN) in Algeria. Even Communist-dominated Vietcong described itself as a National Liberation Front.

    Islamist or leftist, Palestinian political movements treat Palestine as a “cause” rather than a political project. But what is that “cause”? This was clearly put by Hamas leader Khalid Mishal in a speech in Tehran on 3 October. “Our aim,” he said, “is liberating all of Palestine from the River to the Sea.” In other words, the cause is not to give Palestinians a state but to destroy Israel. Ramadan Abdallah Shallah, leader of the Islamic Jihad for Palestine was even more explicit. “When we come to power we shall not allow the Zionist regime to live a single moment,” he said in Tehran.

    According to the daily Kayhan of 4 October, both men paid tribute to “Supreme Guide” Ali Khamenei as the man who should have the final word on Palestine. Mishal said: “The esteemed Commander of the Islamic Revolution, Imam Khamenei, is our Guide and Leader. His wishes will be the cause of the Palestinians. Our sovereign and master is Khamenei.”

    This, of course, is not the first time that Palestinian leaders have auctioned “the cause”. There was a time when Abdel Nasser was bootlicked as “guide and master”. In 1991, Yasser Arafat sold “the cause” to Saddam Hussein. A few years later in Oslo, he re-sold it to Shimon Peres. In his speech, Khamenei promised that, once Israel is destroyed, he would organize a referendum in which Palestinians from all over the world and some citizens of Israel would decide what to do with “liberated Palestine”. Mischievous tongues in Tehran say that one option could be to attach “liberated Palestine” to Khamenei’s “imamate” empire. This is not fanciful. After all, Nasser, too, had hoped to annex “liberated Palestine” for his Arab Republic. Saddam Hussein had dreams of turning Palestine into Iraq’s “counter on the Mediterranean”, a scheme that would have also required the destruction of Jordan as an independent country. Hafez al-Assad fancied Palestine as part of “Greater Syria”.

    Mishal and Shallah’s flattery towards Khamenei implies that there is no Palestinian “nation”. A sovereign nation would not demand that the leader of a foreign country decide its future. The quest for a Palestinian state starts with the Palestinians themselves. They must decide whether they are a modern nation or a fragment of larger entities beyond their control....As a member of the United Nations, a state cannot adopt the destruction of another UN member as its “cause.”

    Palestine must choose what it wants to be a “cause” or a state.
     
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2011

Share This Page