1- The Palestinian right of return as not “dictated by international law”
2- The borders drawn under Sykes-Picot have “no legitimacy”
"Visser: "Dammit, It Is NOT Unravelling: An Historian’s Rebuke to Misrepresentations of Sykes-Picot"
Chomsky's being pedantic, and blind to his bias.
However, this is not the case for (3). While there is near-universal international support for (1), there is virtually no meaningful support for (3) beyond the BDS movement itself. Nor is (3) dictated by international law. The text of UN General Assembly Resolution 194 is conditional, and in any event it is a recommendation, without the legal force of the Security Council resolutions that Israel regularly violates. Insistence on (3) is a virtual guarantee of failure.Khalidi
The only slim hope for realizing (3) in more than token numbers is if longer-term developments lead to the erosion of the imperial borders imposed by France and Britain after World War I, which, like similar borders, have no legitimacy. This could lead to a “no-state solution”—the optimal one, in my view, and in the real world no less plausible than the “one-state solution” that is commonly, but mistakenly, discussed as an alternative to the international consensus.
Anybody who is talking about a Palestinian state is talking about Wizard of Oz stuff. It’s not a reality… There is one state between the river and the sea. The Palestinians have a fife-and-drum corps, and control over nothing.Things are moving faster
RT @jvplive: Cutting Israel ties: El Salvador, Chile, Peru, Brazil, Ecuador, Argentina, Venezuela, Uruguay, Paraguay pic.twitter.com/Y7GS3SSULg
— Yigal Arens (@yarens1) July 31, 2014