AFAIK his criticism of BDS wasn’t that they rejected Israel per se, but rather that they upheld one aspect of international law but not the other. I disagree because I think international law is already largely worthless, but I think it was “if you lean on the law that says X, you have to accept that the same law says Y”, rather than “Israel has a right to exist and I don’t like that you’re undermining it”. I could be misremembering this, 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.
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.
AFAIK his criticism of BDS wasn’t that they rejected Israel per se, but rather that they upheld one aspect of international law but not the other. I disagree because I think international law is already largely worthless, but I think it was “if you lean on the law that says X, you have to accept that the same law says Y”, rather than “Israel has a right to exist and I don’t like that you’re undermining it”. I could be misremembering this, 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.