| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
161894
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
These memoirs of the AAUG by one of its leaders, and a former president, focus on its shortcomings, as well as the role of women within the organization. It also addresses the issues of secular Arab nationalism and the more recent phenomena of Islamophobia.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
145618
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This study seeks to explain the implications of the US's withdrawal from the Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations, resulting in the weakening of the Palestinian Authority, and calls for abrogating the Oslo Accords. Causes of the failure of the Accords, such as the Palestinians' inability to act on Oslo's projected date of 1990 for statehood, or to stand up to the Clinton Parameters for peace, or to stem the tide of the Jewish settlement movement, or to capitalize on pronouncements of the International Criminal Court on the Wall and the settlements, are examined. International stalemate resulting from Israel's freezing of the Quartet's Roadmap leading to Israel's rebranding itself as a Jewish state hammered the last nail in the coffin of the two-state solution. The article concludes with an assessment of Israeli reaction to the one-state solution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
186519
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
U.S. criticism of its client/ally Saudi Arabia regarding the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi immediately diminished the kingdom’s ability to secure funds for its latest mega development project, the Neom convention center. U.S. intelligence pinned the crime on aides to Crown Prince Muhammad Bin Salman (MBS). At the same time, a seemingly unauthorized operation, later attributed to former president Donald Trump, killed a top Iranian commander, Qasem Suleimani, by a drone strike. Congress was not involved and the UN protested this as a violation of Article 51 of its Charter, emphasizing that this was justified in a case of imminent threat, undertaken only by a state. Encouraged by drone technology, the U.S. found it easy to locate the target and minimize collateral damage. International lawyers and military experts are still debating the legitimacy of such action. The U.S. is persisting in claiming that it upholds the standards of international humanitarian law which sometimes sanctions targeted killing. A number of international law professors continue to deride U.S. action as illegal, while the latter continues to describe its actions as defensive in nature. Organizations such as Human Rights Watch lament the reluctance of previous U.S. presidents to define targeted killing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|