Oh please. There is nothing worse than someone claiming to talk about international law and then, you know, never bringing up any actual international law. Sheesh.
She opens with a question:
"Can the State of Israel as it was established and in the way that it currently maintains itself be a State which complies with the rules of international law and respects Palestinian's human rights?"
Let's just regurgitate that question in a way which is objective and doesn't single out Israel: Can a state be a state which complies with the rules of international law and respects human rights?"
The answer seems somewhat obvious. Yes, yes a state can be a state which complies with the rules of international law and respects human rights.
What, then is the problem with Israel which specifically and inherently prevents her from being a state which complies with the rules of international law and human rights?
According to her, it is Israel's definition as a Jewish State or a State for the Jewish people. She says:
"Jewish State as Israel defines itself which is that Jews are defined as a national and ethnic group ... and the state is a state of the Jewish people. It privileges Jews in its laws, policies, practices and institutions ... tries to maintain a Jewish majority population .... And therein lies the problem ... Its Jewish character means that inevitably carries out international law violations and that compliance with international law would lead to unravelling its Jewish character. It purports to represent an ethnic group which is different than the indigenous ethnic group of the territory that it controls.
Let's break up that party in a way which is objective and doesn't single out Israel: A State which defines itself by a national and ethnic group and is a state of the people of that ethnic group privileges the people of that ethnic group in its laws, policies, practices and institutions. Having the character of an ethnic group means that it inevitably carries out international law violations and that compliance with international law would lead to unravelling its ethnic character. It purports to represent an ethnic group which is different than the indigenous ethnic group of the territory that it controls.
She is saying that it is a violation of international law to define a state by a national and ethnic group. She is saying it is a violation of international law to establish a state based on a national or ethnic group. She is saying that any state which has the character of an ethnic group violates international law and compliance with law can only occur when a state rejects its ethnic character. She is saying that the only viable state which can comply with international law is where the government represents the ethnic group of the indigenous peoples.
Wow. That is an ASTONISHING claim. Truly, ridiculously, astonishing. I would really, really like to see her links on that. Because I can not think of a single State in the world that complies with that (cough cough) interpretation of international law.