The first argument is in his discussion of the Israeli view to rightfully possessing the West Bank. This argument is supported by the Israeli perception that Biblically they have a right to this land but the author disproves this argument by pointing out how other Arab nations view this occupational standpoint as one that is very hollow. Other Arab nations view Israeli governmental financial and protective b... ... middle of paper ... ... which not only has been shown by history but is also reflected in the author’s analysis. This viewpoint most likely comes from my personal conscious assumption and general knowledge of the subject and how it has been an issue of great debate and animosity between both sides involved. A question that I had prior to this piece and one that was not really addressed by this article is why did the Camp David Summit of 2000 fail?
For this to transpire, both populates would need to agree to share the territory and to live under the a shared state, or as Morris bluntly put it, “the two simplest and most logical variants of a one stat... ... middle of paper ... ...ceptualizing that the West Bank should be given to Jordan in order to create a unified Arab state and a Separate Jewish state (Morris, 2009, 200). Written almost as long essay, Morris’s book does provide an adequate amount of source material regarding the Israel, Palestine conflict. The subject of the book, the history and resulting solutions proposed by Morris were good, and quite relevant to the continued struggle in the Middle East. Nonetheless, it must be said that this book falls relatively short of the ideal, ‘unbiased’ academic paper. If one were interested in a subjective history of Israeli beliefs, laced with subtle jabs at the Palestinians and extremist Israeli propaganda, this book may fit their wants.
The United States did not have a legitimate reason for invading, and their ability to repudiate international law would be unacceptable for any other country. Their decision to invade Iraq was one based on money and politics, and the US should be subject to penalties just as any other nation would have to face after unnecessarily waging war on a nation. March 19th, 2003 marked the official start to the US invasion of Iraq. Prior to this, there had been a lot of tension and conflict building up in the Middle East. Just months prior, President George W. Bush said in his state of the union address, coined a term for three countries that were seen as potentially dangerous and threaten the peace of the world.
On the 17th of April 2012, Palestinian Authority President, Mahmoud Abbas, sent a letter to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu indicating the only way the Palestinian Authority would agree to move forward with peace talks is if Israel would agree to freeze the building of settlements in the West Bank1. Israeli settlements in the West Bank have become the largest obstacle in negotiating a two-state solution and it appears the continued expansion of Israeli settlements may render a two-state solution impossible. Inside the Israeli government following the 1967 war there was a debate about how to deal with the newly occupied territories of the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Sinai Peninsula, and Golan Heights. The debate revolved around two competing desires: the need for secure and defendable borders and the wish to absorb as few Palestinians as possible into Israel proper2. This paper intends to discuss the major influences on Israel’s West Bank settlement policy.
Consequently, the international community has expressed outrage in the United States’ actions to combat the International Criminal Court’s authority. As a world leader with one of the most sophisticated and respected judicial systems, these types of actions present the U.S. as appearing indifferent to the plight of human rights vi... ... middle of paper ... ...s in International Relations (New York: Longman). Elsea, Jennifer (2006), “U.S. Policy Regarding the International Criminal Court,” in CRS Report for Congess (Washington D.C.; Library of Congress), 4. Bogdan, Attila (2008), “The United States and the International Criminal Court: Avoiding Jurisdiction Through Bilateral Agreements in Reliance on Article 98,” International Criminal Law Review, 8(1-2), 5.
Introduction The Palestinian Authority has been working towards becoming a State as recognized by the United Nations. This would provide them with legitimacy internationally; additionally, when looking at the Israeli-Palestinian conflict the ability to be a State would provide the Palestinian Authority more negotiating power with Israel especially in regards to territory. As the United Nations considers allowing Palestine to be a State they have considered the stability of the nation. The recent addition of Palestine as a Non-Voting Member State to the UN suggests movement towards Palestine being recognized as a State, which has implications for the region. However, looking beyond the international politics relating to their recognition as a State, it is unclear if they have the ability to function effectively as a State.
Unfortunately for the UN, the United States is a biased "indifferent judge" when it comes to the power of the United Nations. Because the US holds so much clout, we have managed to lead off direct criticism of Israel at the last treaty review conference in 1995. But according to Locke, the UN must "determine all differences according to the established law." According to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, Israel is in direct conflict with the established law. Thirdly, the UN must have the power to enforce the law.
A major problem that I have observed is the inability of the United Nations Security Council to ascribe certainty to all laws broken and provide punishment to both sides. This lack of legal authority will continue to plague the progress both politically and within the legal institutions being used to approach the situation. Resolution and absolution of the definitions and particulates of these major issues are necessary to achieve lasting peace in the region and eventual coexistence. Works Cited Alan Dershowitz “The Case Against the Goldstone Report” “The UN Gaza Report: A Substantive Critique” Ambassador Dore Gold Noura Erakat “It’s Not Wrong, It’s Illegal” “United Nations Fact Finding Mission” Richard Goldstone
In my short essay, I disagree with the assertion that “Until there are serious consequences to violations, states won’t comply with human rights because there is nothing to force them to.” I argue that there are hard mechanism approaches to force compliance – the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the UN Security Council (UNSC). Next, I argue why current approaches are not working as intended.... ... middle of paper ... ...e. My proposed solution to the problem of non-compliance is that world leaders must eliminate politics from the international human rights regime. Politics is the bane of the regime. What is needed from all actors is consistency in the implementation of sanctions; the attitude by which states pick and choose whom to punish or spare must be discouraged. The human right regime cannot work by itself; it must be made to work through the generous cooperation of all, especially the world superpowers.
The best – and again, most improbable – scenario for the Palestinian people is the official recognition of the state of Palestine by the 1967 borders. The most important effect of recognition is that Israel would be violating international law by having its forces in another state, and would be ‘legally’ obligated to withdraw. The term ‘legally’ is loosely used here because of the debate over the existence of anarchy at th... ... middle of paper ... ... Sep. 2011. Web. 13 Nov. 2011.