Customer Reviews

Palestine, Palestinians and International Law

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

This is a brilliant overview of the legal framework of analysing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, written for a lay audience.

Boyle demonstrates that Palestine is legally a state - recognised by over 110 countries worldwide - and that since Israel has refused to recognise it, and has, in fact, trampled over its sovereign rights, it deserves to be suspended from the United Nations.

Israel's entry into the UN, after all, was contingent on its adherence to UN Security Council Resolutions 181 and 194, which, fifty-seven years later, it has failed to implement. These constitute gross violations of international law, for which there must be legal consequences.

Boyle effectively proves his points with a learned, yet accessible style; unfortunately, intelligent and reasoned views such as his are absent in American discourse on this topic, especially in the "paper of record", the New York Times.

In international law, Palestine is an independent nation. Article 22(4) of the Covenant of the League of Nations (1919), the 1922 Mandate for Palestine and the Treaty of Lausanne (1923) recognised that all Arab territories of the former Ottoman provinces, including Palestine, were to be granted freedom as provisionally independent nations. As the Covenant asserted, "their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognised." This was reaffirmed in the UN Charter, Article 80(1).

What then is the root of the problem in the Middle East? On 7 October 2000 the Security Council adopted Resolution 1322 by 14 votes to nil, with the USA abstaining. In Paragraph 1 the Council "Deplores the provocation carried out at Al-Haram al-Sharif in Jerusalem on 28 September and the subsequent violence there ... " Thereby it held Ariel Sharon's provocative visit to the Temple Mount responsible for starting the current round of warfare. In Paragraph 3 the Council called Israel `the occupying power'. The UN recognises Israel as only a belligerent occupant of Palestine's land, with no sovereign rights there.

The condition of Israel's original admission to the UNO was its acceptance of Resolution 181(II) 1947 on partition and Resolution 194(III) 1948 on the Palestinians' right of return. Israel has now expressly repudiated both Resolutions, violating its condition for admission to UN membership.

Israel is trying to impose a colonial deal on the Palestinians like the `independence' agreements that the British government in the 1950s imposed on the Cypriot government, that British military bases there were to be sovereign British, not Cypriot, territory.

And what is the source of the problem in the Middle East? Not some original Arab sin of lacking the culture of democracy or any other colonialist insult, but the British Empire. As Boyle sums up, the "political problems of the Middle East ... were created by Britain's irresponsible, illegal and void ab initio attempt to terminate the Mandate for Palestine unilaterally."

The previous reviewer shows their obvious bias toward Israel. This book is basically giving by international legal standards, what palestinians have a right to due to the course of law and what the israeli government has not allowed them to achieve. Noam Chomsky said it best when he defined the hypocrite as refusing to apply to themselves the same standards it applies to others. If its wrong for one country it should be wrong for other countries. Israel just by looking at the Un security council resolutions from the early 1950s to the present, has violated far more resolutions than any country combined. Yet no sanctions or actions are put on that country but others do. What Dr Boyle suggests is hold the israeli government accountable for what they do and to give the palestinians the right , true right to self determination as outlined by international law and treaties. The previous reviewer keeps mentioning the holocaust..maybe she should read finkelstein's book who criticizes israel yet is the son of holocaust survivors. the holocaust does not give the israeli government the excuse to oppress others. In psychology, its like an abused child going about abusing their kids when they get older. they cycle of oppression and genocide must end. israel must be held accountable for what it has done to palestinians. This book shows a good example of this according to international law

The author starts with the premise of solving the conflict using international law and precedents set in other similar cases. He writes like an editorialist in the sense that the articles do not really link or go in order. They are just different arguments for the same point. He is a supporter of the PLO and the two state solution, which people here can debate about the pros and cons, but I will not bore the audience. If you want an international law approach to a handful of topics involved in the Israel-Palestine conflict, I recommend the book. If you want a general reader or information on a specific topic involved, this book is not for you.

We know that people can write counterproductive and immoral laws. The National Socialists did that in Germany in the 1930s. It can happen again. If you believe the author, it already has.

It turns out the author is not telling the truth. We do not yet have arbitrary and racist laws on international law books that insist that Israelis must be oppressed. But if there are enough people like Boyle, one day we will.

Still, as long as we're all going to be liars, thieves, and murderers, I see no need for bad laws. If that is how we're all going to be, we do not need laws at all.

That means that I think we ought to look at Boyle's seven recommendations from the point of view of believing in human civilization, not from an attitude of trying to destroy it.

Boyle's first recommendation is for the UN to suspend Israel. Given that Israel is not a problem, that won't accomplish anything positive. But suppose it were a problem. Getting Israel out of the UN still would not help matters. Had Germany kicked all the anti-National Socialist nations out of the League of Nations, that would have been unhelpful. But getting Germany out of the League of Nations was also unhelpful.

In any case, I have a modest counterproposal. Outlaw the UN, and put those who work for it on trial. That will get the point across that actions have consequences. Right now, folks at the UN figure they can do anything without any fear of responsibility or consequences. But that can be changed.

Boyle's second proposal is to use international laws as a basis for peace. Again, I have a counterproposal. Use truth as a basis for peace. And make laws consistent with justice.

I think that the vindication of theft and murder will not bring peace. The falsely accused victims will scoff at bad laws in the future. The falsely acquitted thugs will try their hand at more crimes. But the vindication of the so far falsely accused Israelis will have a very positive effect on them, and reassure them that they can be treated fairly. It will also teach the Arabs that being led by thugs is bad for their foreign policy, not just for their domestic policy.

The third Boyle recommendation is to dump the "dishonest broker," namely the United States. My comment is that the problem is the international community. If we want human civilization to thrive, we need to do something about this problem. Ending the demonization of Israel will not suffice.

The author's fourth recommendation is to impose economic, diplomatic, and travel restrictions on Israel. That's silly, of course. Ignoring the fact that it is unfair, it may not even accomplish anything. People can be pressured into falsely admitting to crimes, or to committing crimes, or even into killing themselves. But innocent people can not be shamed into doing any of these things. In World War Two, the Jews could not be shamed into dying by the millions. It required mass murder to make them die in such numbers.

Boyle's fifth recommendation is to set up an International Criminal Tribunal to prosecute the bad guys (but not their victims) as war criminals, both military and civilian, especially political leaders. I agree completely, and I would include propagandists on my list to prosecute. In World War Two, some of my civilian relatives were murdered by the Russians. But the Russians were not tried for war crimes after the war, the Germans were. I think this was proper. If you keep putting the victims on trial, you'll never convict the aggressors.

Here too, I have one minor change to make in what Boyle says. He wants to prosecute only the Israelis, not the Arabs. He has it backwards. We must prosecute only the Arabs and their allies, not the Israelis. Put the bad guys on trial!

The sixth recommendation is a World Court lawsuit for genocide. Given the number of Israelis who have been killed and maimed by Arab terrorists, I think a lawsuit would be appropriate. Arab and European money has funded such crimes, and a lawsuit would attack some of the problem at the source.

The seventh and final recommendation is a divestment and disinvestment campaign. Of course, it is from Israel, which as I said earlier, won't be shamed into becoming bad, but might be pressured into it. My guess is that it will take considerable pressure to get rid of their rights entirely. But this book has given me plenty of good ideas. Such a campaign against the antizionists might actually work. They are the ones who can see that they are opposing truth, justice, and human rights. There really is a potential for shaming them into becoming more decent.

This book didn't deserve a star, but I gave it one anyway.

Palestine, Palestinians & International Law is this:

Israel is always wrong
Palestinians are always right.

This is a piece of garbage.