Yeah that’s exactly what I mean, but the sticking point is that applying his rule means anyone who says “Israel should stop existing and Palestine should be the only state in that territory” is out of line. Sure, it’s because of his respect for international law (which is what makes his work as an academic rock solid) but it’s still a rule that is incompatible with the realities of imperialism.
is that applying his rule means anyone who says “Israel should stop existing and Palestine should be the only state in that territory” is out of line
I think his point is that it’s out of line if the same person also calls for respect of international law, because that’s an inconsistent position (international law supports Israel’s right to exist, so calling to respect it means also calling for that). As I said before, I think international law is already worthless, but I see the logic of the argument even if I disagree with it. I might have been misremembering his position, though.
Yeah that’s exactly what I mean, but the sticking point is that applying his rule means anyone who says “Israel should stop existing and Palestine should be the only state in that territory” is out of line. Sure, it’s because of his respect for international law (which is what makes his work as an academic rock solid) but it’s still a rule that is incompatible with the realities of imperialism.
I think his point is that it’s out of line if the same person also calls for respect of international law, because that’s an inconsistent position (international law supports Israel’s right to exist, so calling to respect it means also calling for that). As I said before, I think international law is already worthless, but I see the logic of the argument even if I disagree with it. I might have been misremembering his position, though.