Palestine, Palestinians and International Law

by Francis A. Boyle

Book Overview

A leading US expert applies the norms and standards of international lawto the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, addressing Palestinian statehood, thenegotiation and failure of the Oslo Accords, the status of Jerusalem, theAl Aqsa Intifada, the right of return, human rights violations, war crimes, crimes against humanity, terrorism (both state and suicide bombings), thecurrent divest-from-Israel campaign and the US war against Iraq.

• Format: Paperback
• Language: English
• ISBN: 093286337X
• ISBN13: 9780932863379
• Release Date: September 2009
• Publisher: Clarity Press, Inc.
• Length: 100 Pages
• Weight: 0.65 lbs.
• Dimensions: 0.5" x 6.1" x 9.0"

Customer Reviews

Brilliant overview

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.

Fine assertion of Palestine's right to statehood

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."

A good view on the crisis based on international law

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