| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
054397
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Washington, D.C., United States Institute of Peace Press, 1997.
|
| Description |
xiv, 298p.
|
| Standard Number |
1878379623
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 046165 | 323.1/LAP 046165 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
158814
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This brief paper will discuss a major legal issue related to the Balfour Declaration. Scholars and politicians have devoted much attention the following questions: Is it a binding declaration? Does it contradict the MacMahon-Hussein correspondence of 1915-1916, which promised independence to the Arabs? What is the meaning of the term, “National Home”? What is the meaning of the term “in Palestine”? Does it mean in all of Palestine? While the above are interesting questions, I prefer to address an issue which does not appear to have been a topic of intensive study, namely, is the Balfour Declaration a text which is legally binding?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
124362
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Israel's rights are being consistently negated through misleading interpretations of UN Security Council Resolution 242. The resolution does not request Israel to withdraw from all the territories captured in the 1967 Six-Day War and does not recognize that the Palestinian refugees have a right to return to Israel. The Security Council laid down several principles that should lead to a peaceful solution of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Among these principles are an Israeli with drawn from territories occupied in 1967 to new secure and recognized boundaries, to be established by agreement, and the need for a just settlement of the refugee problem, without any reference to a right of return.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|