Tuesday, January 14, 2014

Bellerose Has Some Words

Michael L.

{Cross-posted at Jews Down Under.}

I find the recent dust-up with our friend Ryan Bellerose to be instructive.

Bellerose took exception to a comment by Trudy suggesting that the very notion of "indigenous" is nonsense.  I am actually not heavily invested in that word, but the Jews have as much right to what I am calling "indigenous status" as pretty much anyone else on the planet.  Stuart endeavors to strip the Jews of indigenous status based upon anthropologist José R. Martínez-Cobo's definition of indigenous people, cited by Bellerose in his original article published at Israelycool.

Stuart writes the following:
Bellerose does, however, in his analysis, conveniently skip one of the requirements in Martinez Cobo's definition of indigenous people. 
•  Common ancestry with the original occupants of these lands. 
According to Stuart, because the Jews cannot claim to be the original occupants of Jewish land they are not actually "indigenous."  3,500 years of residency on Jewish land is apparently not sufficient for the Jews to make any such claims.

Nonetheless, this is Bellerose's recent comment which I am highlighting because I think that it needs discussion and because the Jewish people, as a tiny minority in the world, need to reach out to potential allies wherever we may find them.

Bellerose writes this:
A few things

Being indigenous isnt just about where you are physically from, its about the Genesis of culture and ancestral ties to the land as well. Thats why Jews and Metis are absolutely indigenous peoples to our respective regions. the " we all came from africa" argument is used by ignorant people to counter indigenous rights, because after all if we all came from the same place the nobody is indigenous. if you cant see how damaging that is, then I am not the one who needs to study.

I refute the Paestinians claim to be indigenous because it harms our rights, to allow a conqueror to claim that they can become indigenous THROUGH conquest, means my people have to accept the same for those who conquered north america.

You are relatively new with this, so let me explain something, most people dont know this stuff, lots of them thing the middle easy is where arabs are from, they think jews are white because some of you have pale skin, they dont understand what white privilege is. They have no idea that assimilation is like death to an indigenous person because it results in the loss of who we are.

I don't know empress trudy and maybe she isnt the asshat she appeared to be, but her first post started off stupid and it didnt get any better from there. 
she wrote

"Keeping in mind of course that this whole 'indigenous' nonsense" is an outgrowth of two things. 1) the 60's ethos that primitivism is inherently good and anything else is inherently evil. And 2) it's really a racist expression of "The White Man's Burden."

Im not sure how you could possibly think an indigenous rights activist who has been fighting for his peoples rights for 2 decades wouldnt get offended at such a moronic statement " indigenous nonsense"? really?

secondly indigenous rights have nothing to do with primitivism, we want to maintain our culture and our traditions and have self determination on our ancestral lands. sound familiar? a little bit like zionism maybe? we arent advocating wearing loincloths and living in teepees again ffs.

"Both of them are racist patronizing expressions that brown people or what we call brown people this moment (and that can change) are not the genuine stewards of their own destiny and they have to be protected from De Evul White Mon on their little reservations and ghettos; like Potemkin villages where the rich white liberals gawk at them like zoo animals. It's about how WE feel about US. Not them."

people who dont live in ghettos or reserves should probably not talk about them, that little paragraph is exceptionally offensive. Maybe she was being sarcastic, but the rest of the post makes me wonder if thats the case. 
then she wrote "Because be clear 'indigenous' has nothing to do with point of origin. It's about a myth or who's genuine and who's not." 
Indigenous rights are not a myth, there is nothing arbitrary about them, they come from a very specific set of guidelines, you wonder why I become bellicose so easily, try making this argument for 2 decades with no support and see how patient you are when people say something stupid.
I do not know that everyone will find this exercise interesting, but I find it so.

Bellerose writes:
Being indigenous isnt just about where you are physically from, its about the Genesis of culture and ancestral ties to the land as well. 
 Bellerose has respect for his own people.

Against all odds, he is willing to stand up for his people.  And, indeed, "indigenous" is not merely about who got there first.  It is about the long-standing history and culture of peoples and while such peoples obviously include Native-Americans, or Native-Australians, for that matter, they also include the Jewish natives of the Middle East.
I refute the Paestinians claim to be indigenous because it harms our rights, to allow a conqueror to claim that they can become indigenous THROUGH conquest...
This is the key to Bellerose's argument.

It highlights a difference between Native-Americans and the native Jewish population in the Land of Israel because, if the Bible is any clue, the Jews did, in fact, conquer that land from the Canaanites many thousands of years ago.
Im not sure how you could possibly think an indigenous rights activist who has been fighting for his peoples rights for 2 decades wouldnt get offended at such a moronic statement " indigenous nonsense"? really?
I think that we can forgive the grammar given the fact that this was part of a comment, not an article meant for publication.   What I care about is the idea, not the punctuation, and I believe that Bellerose is correct.

It is offensive to tell Native-American activists that the concept of indigenous is nonsense.  Just as we want people to respect the Jewish presence on historically Jewish land, so we need to respect, and reach out towards, other peoples who are also fighting for their indigenous rights.  The obvious difference, of course, is that the Jewish people took back our homeland, while Native-Americans, and other indigenous peoples, are fighting for their claims and their rights and their culture.

We have to understand that, as Jews, we are exceedingly lucky because the previous generations in the twentieth-century fought to secure our heritage and our historic homeland.  People like Ben Gurion and Dayan and Begin and Meir and, yes, Sharon, fought like hell to secure a Jewish place in this world on the land that the Jewish people came from.  I am proud that after 2,000 years of exile they were able to do so and I am also pleased that Native-American Zionist football players, like Mr. Bellerose, are willing to stand up for us.

But this can only mean that we have to stand up for him.

We have to stand up for the rights of all indigenous peoples.

We have to also stand up for the rights of women and Gay people and non-Muslims throughout the Arab-Muslim world as a matter of universal human rights.  The reason that Bellerose is important is because as part of an historically persecuted minority he is reaching out to the Jewish people, who are also an historically persecuted minority.

Let us be sure to keep that in mind.
secondly indigenous rights have nothing to do with primitivism, we want to maintain our culture and our traditions and have self determination on our ancestral lands. sound familiar? a little bit like zionism maybe?
Indeed, indigenous rights have nothing to do with primitivism.

Oldschooltwentysix pointed this out, as well, and I agree, as I suspect would Trudy.

No one here suggested that Native-Americans are "primitive," whatever we mean by that, exactly.

The suggestion, if I am interpreting Trudy correctly, is that the western-left continues to mischaracterize native peoples in romantic terms.  As a critic of the western-left, or the progressive-left, I can tell you with certainty that the prominent view of native peoples, with the exception of the Jews, is romanticized and demeaning and infused with notions of the "noble savage" within progressive-left political discourse.

Perhaps that is changing over time, but if anyone does not fit the stereotype it is Bellerose.


  1. As stated before, to be indigenous means to be non-dominant, but having the right to internal self-determination within the confines of a state.

    Non-dominance is an indispensable element.

    Therefore, Jews may be indigenous to Israel on one level, but as they are already dominant, do not need and cannot have indigenous rights.

    There are no indigenous rights recognized by the international community when it comes to external self-determination of a state.

    1. The Jews are, in fact, non-dominant.

      The Jews of the Middle East are tiny minority under siege.

      Furthermore, the rights recognized by the "international community" - whatever that might be - are entirely irrelevant.

      There is no such thing as an "international community" nor is is there any such thing as "international law."

    2. Indigenous rights, one again, only arise withing the context of a state, and in Israel the dominant group are the Jews.

      That is the point. Jews may be indigenous, but that is a different type than what is recognized in international law, and when people talk about indigenous rights from a lega point of view, it is in the context of the state and internal, rather than external, self-determination. The same holds true for being dominant or non-dominant.

    3. There is no such thing as "international law," School.

      There is no such thing as an "international community."

      There are only people.

      A tiny percentage of those people are Jews.

      The Jews in the Middle East are a small persecuted minority surrounded by a much larger theocratically-hostile majority that has kicked Jewish ass for 1,300 years. This is what matters if you care about the well-being of the Jewish people. If someone's primary concern is establishing a moral or legal basis for international law that is fine, but that is not my concern.

      I assume that at some point in his Harvard experience Barack Obama was introduced to the concept of international law, yet it evades me why anyone should care.

      All that I want is for the Arabs to stop persecuting the indigenous Jewish minority in that part of the world.

      Until they do so they will experience a painful ongoing Jewish pushback and I applaud that pushback.

      "International law" has nothing to do with anything, because no one cares about international law. Certainly the very last thing that the United Nations, as an organization, cares about is the concept of "international law."

      What I care about is keeping savages from the throats of three month old Jewish girls who live where neither Barack Obama, nor Mahmoud Abbas, want them to live.

      That is all.

    4. In my opinion, you are mixing things.

      If there is no international law, how did the League of Nations create the Palestine mandate? What is the United Nations charter? What gives the Security Council its authority? What about the WTO?

      International law is the law between states, with a few exceptions. Just because it is weaker than domestic law does not mean it is not law.

      If not for international law, one might say that there would be no indigenous rights because they are sourced to international conventions.

      I understand where you are coming from. Jews are indigenous to Israel in common parlance, but the rights of the indigenous exclude Jews in Israel. It would be otherwise if they lived in a bi-national state where Jews were not the dominant group. As is now stands, there is no threat to Jewish culture or language in Israel. This is what indigenous rights seek to protect against the dominant culture and language.

      Indigenous rights are tied to internal self-determination. Zionism is tied to external self-determination. Once a state exists, through exercise of sovereignty, it is entitled theoretically to external self.determination and non-interference from other states. That issue is that Jewish sovereignty, not the product of an aggression, is treated differently that any other like sovereignty, which violates the principle of sovereign equality of states.

      Is seems that when you refer to indigenous, you are more accurately referring to Israel as the ancient homeland of the Jews, over which they have established legal sovereignty, but which is not treated by other states as legitimate, unlike treatment of any other state.

    5. Indeed.

      Is seems that when you refer to indigenous, you are more accurately referring to Israel as the ancient homeland of the Jews, over which they have established legal sovereignty, but which is not treated by other states as legitimate, unlike treatment of any other state.

      I would argue that we cannot allow the status of Israel to be dictated by "international law," because international law is arbitrary in both conception and application and is therefore without meaning.

    6. The status of Israel has already been dictated by international law, starting with the League of Nations Charter that established that Palestine was the ancient homeland of the Jews, followed up with its ability to create a state and exercise sovereignty.

      Most people are not aware of these underpinnings, which are far more powerful than the matter of indigenous rights that, in fact, do not exist.

      I really have a hard time understanding where you are going with this, or the extent that you understand the basis, concepts and practice of public international law. The system differs from what is found in domestic law.

      In any event, Jews are not indigenous in the legal sense of the word for the reasons indicated. To argue back and forth about this issue does not matter much, in my opinion, and seems not just esoteric, but to occupy more brain cells than it is worth.

    7. School, no one cares about international law.

      That is the point.

      Even the UN does not care about international law for if they did they would apply it fairly and create it fairly, but they do not. It is a tool of power politics that is rarely and sporadically emforced, nothing more.

      Israel's status was not dictated by international law.

      Israel's status and development and evolution was "dictated" by the behavior of the people who built the state from the First Aliyah onward. All the UN did was recognize a condition that already existed in 1948, but it was the people of that land who created the condition over many decades of blood and sweat.

      If we allow Israel's fate to be dictated by international law it means that we are giving up the Zionist project, more generally, because it means handing over the fate of the Jewish people to... whom? The Arab League?

      It seems to me that the international legal system can be used as one tool in a larger arsenal, so I am not saying that Israel should quit the UN... at least, not yet. But at the same time we cannot allow the life of the State of Israel to be dictated by those who have no stake.

      I am not an expert on international law. Clearly. But, nonetheless, I think that we make a big mistake in tying the fate of Israel to the arbitrary fluctuations of legislators who could care less about the well-being of the Jewish people.

    8. No one cares? No offense, but I care and I know others that do as well, and it is presumptuous to speak for everyone. I understand that you do not care.

      It is also clear, at least to me, that you are not an expert, which is why you have conflated the different levels of indigenous and do not seem to understand the dynamics why Jews are not indigenous when it comes to Israel, even as international law recognized Israel as the historic homeland of the Jewish people.

      This whole discussion began within the context of indigenous rights, and my comments were directed at that, even as we are now far afield in the swamp of international law, filled with complexities and ambiguities, but important in many respects to establish relations between states and to fulfill state obligations domestically.

      That is not to say that the system is not subject to abuse and obsolescence.

      Why do you discount the League of Nations Charter and subsequent Mandate of Palestine in 1922, all affirmed by UN Charter, Article 80 and preceding the establishment of the State of Israel?

      Finally, who said that Israel's fate is to be decided by international law? Not me. You apparently misconstrue what has been said because I used international law to argue that Jews cannot be indigenous in Israel, even if one can say they are indigenous to Israel.

    9. Well, yes, School. Some people do, in fact, care about international law and I hope that you will excuse my bit of hyperbole to suggest otherwise. I imagine that the number of people who care about international law is about on par with the number of people who care about the fate of Double A baseball clubs like the fighting Altoona Curve or the Erie Seawolves.

      I'm sorry, I do not really mean to scoff, but international law has very little to do with justice. I wish it were otherwise, but given the percentage of UN resolutions, and other legalistic statements, berating Israel while giving the rest of the world a pass, perhaps I can be forgiven for being a tad skeptical on such matters.

      My question at this point would be the following. Do you honestly believe that Jewish engagement with the venues of international law can possibly help create an environment of eased tensions?

      If we agree that international law, in practice, has virtually nothing to do with justice, then what I want to know is how it can be used to keep the enemies of the Jewish people at bay?

      As for "indigenous," I would be exceedingly curious to know what Mr. Bellerose has to say about the influence of international law around that concept and upon the well-being of his people. My guess is that it is one of the few tools that the Metis have available to them, but my suspicion is that international law is about as beneficial to them as it is to us.

    10. With regard to the Metis, it is because of international law that Canada provides them indigenous rights. The source of indigenous rights is in international law that states through treaties agree to implement domestically.

      Of course it depends on what justice is. Legislatures pass many laws that have little to do with justice and all are supposed to have equality in the community of states. Thus, states can choose which treaties they will enter. On this level it is a consensus based system that covers the gamut of relations between states, from commerce and protection of the planet to human rights to criminal law and the law of war.

      It is actually public international law that we are talking about. I agree that most people have no clue or interest in the area. That is not necessarily a good thing. I also agree that it is rampant with abuse, largely because of its nature and the fact that much of its basis, the UN Charter, is in major ways functionally obsolete.

      It is because most people do not understand the system (it is VERY complicated) that they cannot see the positives that come from it that are very important.

      Personally, I would love to see the establishment of a UN block to counter the OIC and non-alligned movement, to set forth guiding principles and fight for them in all UN mechanisms in a unified fashion. States that agree in principles of freedom for individuals and democracy would be its members, even if their performance was not perfect.

      Yes, I honestly believe that Israeli (not Jewish) engagement with the venues of international law can and does help create an environment of eased tensions, that without international law it would be worse. Realistically, has it EVER been just when it comes to treatment of Jews? Antisemitism occurs irrespective of international law.

      Israel should be more aggressive at the UN in pressing its case, and its recent acceptance into the Western Group is a positive, tangible development.


      In short, it is the system we have and we must try to use it to the best effect possible, understanding its severe limitations.

    11. Fair enough, School.

      That was a terrific response and I very much appreciate it.

      It is because most people do not understand the system (it is VERY complicated) that they cannot see the positives that come from it that are very important.

      I actually find it rather comforting that you believe that international law is a largely positive development, if that is a fair characterization.

      It is not that I do not want international to actually help relationships between peoples and states, but that from what I can tell it has done very little in that regard.

      Nonetheless, I am willing to keep an open mind and if in the future you want to send me a link, or two, to articles that you find useful please feel free to pass them on.

      Y'know, there was a time, not so long ago, really, when I held the UN in some respect.

      Those days are over, I am afraid.

  2. It is not "according to Stuart" that Jews are not indigenous. It is according to the source that Ryan quoted.

    1. And, yet, somehow you seem invested in the notion.

      I wonder why?

    2. Because it's nonsense. You can't logically cite a definition that doesn't fit, and then claim it supports your argument. Beyond that, the only purpose to discuss Jews as "indigenous people" in the context of the middle east would be to refute similar arguments made on behalf of the Palestinians. Neither are indigenous, unless the word is being redefined or history is rewritten. There's already, as you've noted many times, too much rewriting of history. Adding more doesn't clarify, it only obscures.

    3. I am not interested in that one particular guys' definition of the word. It's not about the word. It's about 3,500 years of history, 2,000 years of exile, and 1,300 hundred years of persecution under the system of dhimmitude on historically Jewish land.

      Israel is the land of the Jews by right, whether you like it or not.

    4. You'll have to search long and hard to no avail to find anything I've said that argues that Israel shouldn't exist. I think it's a moot point. Israel does exist, as a land of the Jews. Supporting the argument that it has a right to exist with logical fallacies is a dead end. Just as the argument for a homeland for Palestinians using logical fallacies is a dead end.

      I'm not saying that it's worthless to discuss "indigenous people" in the context of the conflict. It is an interesting discussion. At its core, a moot one. But it's worthless if you don't define the term. And neither qualify as "indigenous people" unless you make up a new definition.

    5. I am with Bellerose:

      Being indigenous isnt just about where you are physically from, its about the Genesis of culture and ancestral ties to the land as well. Thats why Jews and Metis are absolutely indigenous peoples to our respective regions.

      You may be aware of Palestinian-Arab attempts to either co-opt or erase Jewish history:

      Rewriting the history of the Land of Israel by erasing Jewish history and replacing it with a fabricated Palestinian history is a central goal of the Palestinian Authority (PA) and something that the early generations of Palestinian leaders, including the notorious Hajj Amin Husseini, who led the Palestinian Arabs to their 1948 defeat, dared not do. This fictitious history, which ignores all historical documentation and established historical methods, is based on systematic distortions of both ancient and modern history with the aim of denying Israel's right to exist.

      The Palestinian leaders claim lineage from ancient history, describing the Canaanites as their direct ancestors.[1] In the words of the PA president Mahmoud Abbas: "We said to him [Netanyahu], when he claimed the Jews have a historical right dating back to 3000 years B.C.E., we say that the nation of Palestine upon the land of Canaan had a 7,000-year history. This is the truth that must be said: Netanyahu, you are incidental in history. We are the people of history. We are the owners of history."

      It's not about who got their first, as if we are talking about a footrace. It's about respecting ourselves as a people with a history and a culture in a particular place for an exceedingly long period of time. Bellerose respects his people. I wish half of Jewish people had half the respect for our heritage and struggles that Bellerose has toward his own.

      If Bellerose made the mistake of citing an authority that actually contradicts his claim then you should be commended for pointing that out, but that is hardly the definitive end of the story. What it still comes down to is respecting ourselves and not being shy about standing up for our rights.

      I think it's a moot point. Israel does exist, as a land of the Jews.

      Well, sadly, not everyone agrees with you, Stuart.

      The point is not moot so long as we have millions upon millions of people throughout the world - particularly in the Arab-Muslim worlds and the western progressive-left - who defame Jewish Israelis and pine the elimination of the Jewish state on moral grounds, no less.

      btw, you write, "as a land of the Jews."

      A land?

      Perhaps I am reading something into that line that is actually not there, but if that was a conscious usage then the clear implication is that Israel is not the land of the Jewish people, but merely one place among others where Jews reside. It is a land with Jews in it, as is Hackensack, New Jersey and Walla Walla, Washington.

      {Presuming Walla Walla, actually does have Jews!}

    6. You read something into the line that isn't there. Israel is the homeland of the Jews. Both historically and legally. Neither Hackensack nor Walla Walla can make that claim.

      As I noted, I have read your arguments that the Palestinians have attempted to rewrite both their own history and Jewish history. I think your arguments are both compelling and accurate. I don't think the right counter-argument to those attempts to rewrite history is to make up a new meaning for the word "indigenous".

    7. Stuart,

      I want to thank you for this exchange because it was honestly helpful.

      I mean that sincerely.

      I think that I am willing to suspend the notion of Jewish indigenousness until I learn more about how this concept is used in sociology and anthropology. I have to admit that you were correct in pointing out the contradiction between Bellerose's using of anthropologist José R. Martínez-Cobo as a source for the argument of Jewish indigenousness when his attributes of the indigenous contradict the claim, which include:

      "Common ancestry with the original occupants of these lands," as a required attribute; an attribute that for the Jewish people, unlike the Native-American population, is an open question.

      I compounded that mistake by nodding along with Bellerose before checking his sources.

      Nonetheless, I hope that you would agree that neither one of us are well-schooled in the sub-field of indigenous studies and that while I was mistaken to seize on the notion of Jewish indigenousness, you are perhaps mistaken to dismiss it, if that is what you are doing. I am not conceding the point, but I am willing to reconsider.

      And that is precisely why I value people who challenge me in a fair manner.

      And that is also why you have my thanks.

  3. For me, the only thing that matters in all this is that the Palestinians not be allowed to gain another propaganda coup with their indigenous claims. Fighting that as hard as all the other crap that has become "truth," for anti-Israel morons is important. It must not become a staple of the stupid "Narrative."

  4. Such claims of 'authenticity' are at their core, negative. A negative assertion. They only exist and have meaning in the sense that they attempt to refute something. And typically that something is something no one else has a quibble with. As such it's really about creating an 'issue' and then attempting to own the very issue you created - as if someone else is going to worry about it.

    You never hear someone say they're 'authentic' unless it's take YOUR rights and property away, do you?

  5. I like this Australians take on international law:

    "In an exclusive interview with The Times of Israel, Julie Bishop suggested that, contrary to conventional diplomatic wisdom, the settlements may not be illegal under international law. She refrained from condemning Israeli initiatives to build additional housing units beyond the Green Line or from calling on Israel to freeze such plans, merely saying the fact that settlements were being expanded showed the need for the sides to quickly reach a peace agreement.

    “I don’t want to prejudge the fundamental issues in the peace negotiations,” Bishop said. “The issue of settlements is absolutely and utterly fundamental to the negotiations that are under way and I think it’s appropriate that we give those negotiations every chance of succeeding.”

    Asked whether she agrees or disagrees with the near-universal view that Israeli settlements anywhere beyond the 1967 lines are illegal under international law, she replied: “I would like to see which international law has declared them illegal.”


  6. "In advising that Jewish settlements are illegal, the ICJ went beyond its own mandate from the General Assembly without being asked to do so.

    In paragraph 120 of the Court’s opinion, the ICJ declares:

    “The Court concludes that the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law.”

    The ICJ based its conclusion on the inappropriate use of an article of the Fourth Geneva Convention which stipulates:

    “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”

    This was coupled with a host of anti-Israeli UN General Assembly resolutions passed in the 1990s that describe the West Bank and Gaza as “Palestinian Occupied Territories” and declare Israeli settlements – including hundreds of thousands of Jewish Jerusalemites living in numerous new neighborhoods built since 1967 – to be illegal settlers.

    For example, in paragraph 19 of the opinion, the ICJ notes that in 1997 the Security Council rejected two one-sided draft resolutions that sought to brand Israeli settlements as illegal (draft S/1997/1991 and draft S/1997/2412). The ICJ then proceeds to solemnly describe how “the Arab Group” maneuvered to by-pass the Security Council and to subsequently pass General Assembly Resolution ES-10/2 that “expressed its [General Assembly] conviction” and:

    “… condemned the ‘illegal Israeli actions’ in occupied East Jerusalem and the rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, in particular the construction of settlements in that territory.”

    The ICJ leads the reader to believe that expressing “conviction” in regard to the so-called “illegal Israeli actions in occupied East Jerusalem and the rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territory” is sufficient to make the document a source of law.

    The General Assembly request of the ICJ’s advisory opinion reads:

    “Recalling in particular relevant United Nations resolutions affirming that Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, are illegal and an obstacle to peace and to economic and social development as well as those demanding the complete cessation of settlement activities.”3

    Again, the ICJ treats its reference to “United Nations Resolutions” as if it was a source of law, all without checking its accuracy or legal standing....."


  7. Articles or links that are useful for what? Some of the stuff on the UN and international law gets deep in the weeds.

    As for impressions of the UN, I hold it in respect when deserved, and disrespect when deserved.

    Hopefully, Israel in the Western Group will now be able to contribute and its contributions will be understood by some states that can really use its help in solving their problems.

    1. Useful for understanding how it is that international law and the United Nations do more good than harm and for whom?

      btw, I just came across this sentence in Commentary:

      By successfully gaining a seat at ever more international bodies, the Palestinians have been positioning themselves to be able to better manipulate international law against the Jewish state.

      I guess I simply do not trust international law, School.

      I am willing to consider the possibility that it does more good than harm over all, but I do not see, with few exceptions such as UN 181, that it is the least bit good for the Jewish people, particularly given the fact that the UN is controlled by hostile forces.

      But, as I say, I am willing to reconsider.

    2. Link:


    3. It takes some research to find the research on the matter. Here are three links I came across that go to the utility of international law and its effect on creating norms and compliance by states and other subjects, through different international mechanisms.

      1. Why Do Nations Obey International Law?


      2. More Honey than Vinegar: Peer-Review as a Means to Reconcile Universalist and Relativist Conceptions of Human Rights


      3. The Concept of Legitimacy and International Law


      There is much more to the subject than the Arab-Israel conflict and international peace and similar areas of least compliance, in comparison to areas that assist international development on the ground.

    4. Thanks for taking the time, School.

      I will definitely give those links a good look.