Publisher's Synopsis
In 2018, the State of Israel turned 70, but it has never been fully accepted as a member of the international community. Notwithstanding peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan, conflict between Israel and some of its neighbors in the region is looming. And peace between Israel and the Palestinians seems as far away as ever. Why?Since the 1970's, the idea has developed that international law requires resolution of the Arab/Israeli conflict by creating a State of Palestine with East Jerusalem as its capital, and borders based on the "1967 lines" - the so-called "two-state solution". Israeli settlements are regarded by many as illegal and an impediment to this solution.This book reviews international law regarding self-determination, statehood, territorial sovereignty, human rights and the right to self-defense. It argues that the two-state solution as defined by the UN is not required by international law.The authors examine how international law has been used and misused over the last century with regard to the Arab/Israeli conflict. They argue that the historical context of the creation of the State of Israel, especially the Mandate for Palestine, is too often ignored.The Arab states, the Palestinian leadership and the European Union have all played a role in enabling the UN to become a platform for lawfare against Israel: policies and resolutions that use the language of international law but, in fact, undermine the existence of the Jewish State and have disputable basis in international law. Lawfare is problematic because it undermines the international legal order itself.It is time to revisit the prevailing legal paradigm to resolve the conflict. This book aims to provide a legal framework for the exploration of alternative policy solutions that balance the rights of the Jewish State of Israel to territorial integrity, security and political independence with the rights of Palestinian Arabs to political autonomy, and economic and social advancement.
