Justice for Some: Law and the Question of Palestine

by Noura Erakat, Christine Rendel (narrator), Tantor Audio (publisher)

Justice in the Question of Palestine is often framed as a question of law. Yet none of the Israel-Palestinian conflict's most vexing challenges have been resolved by judicial intervention. Occupation law has failed to stem Israel's settlement enterprise. Laws of war have permitted killing and destruction during Israel's military offensives in the Gaza Strip. The Oslo Accord's two-state solution is now a dead letter.

Justice for Some offers a new approach to understanding the Palestinian struggle for freedom, told through the power and control of international law. Focusing on key junctures—from the Balfour Declaration in 1917 to present-day wars in Gaza—Noura Erakat shows how the strategic deployment of law has shaped current conditions. Over the past century, the law has done more to advance Israel's interests than the Palestinians'. But, Erakat argues, this outcome was never inevitable.

Law is politics, and its meaning and application depend on the political intervention of states and people alike. Within the law, change is possible. International law can serve the cause of freedom when it is mobilized in support of a political movement. Presenting the promise and risk of international law, Justice for Some calls for renewed action and attention to the Question of Palestine.

Genres: Nonfiction, History, Politics, Middle East, Law, Social Justice, Israel

Audible Audio

First published April 23, 2019

About the author

Noura Erakat is a is a Palestinian-American activist, university professor, legal scholar, and human rights attorney.

Her research interests include human rights law, humanitarian law, national security law, refugee law, social justice, and critical race theory.

She is the author of Justice for Some: Law as Politics in the Question of Palestine (Stanford University Press, 2019).

She is currently an associate professor at Rutgers University, specializing in international studies and is a Co-Founding Editor of Jadaliyya, an electronic magazine on the Middle East that combines scholarly expertise and local knowledge.

Erakat earned her J.D. and undergraduate degrees from the University of California at Berkeley (Phi Beta Kappa) and a LLM in National Security from Georgetown University Law Center (Distinction & Dean’s List).

She currently serves on the board of the Institute for Policy Studies; on the board of the Arab Studies Institute; is a Policy Advisor to Al-Shabaka; serves of the Editorial Committee of the Journal for Palestine Studies; and is a founding board member of the DC Palestinian Film and Arts Festival.

Erakat has appeared on CBS News, CNN International with Becky Anderson, CNN with Don Lemon, MSNBC’s “Up With Chris Hayes,” "All In With Chris Hayes," "Ronan Farrow Daily," Fox’s “The O’ Reilly Factor,” NBC’s “Politically Incorrect,” PBS News Hour, NPR, BBC World Service, Democracy Now, and Al-Jazeera America, Arabic, and English. Her publications have appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The LA Review of Books, The LA Times, The Nation, USA Today, The Hill, Foreign Policy, Jezebel, Al Ahram English, Al Shabaka, MERIP, Fair Observer, Middle East Eye, The Interdependent, IntLawGrrls, The Huffington Post, Al Jazeera, and Jadaliyya.

Erakat's scholarly publications include: “US v. ICRC: Customary International Humanitarian Law and Universal Jurisdiction” in the Denver Journal of International Law and Policy; "New Imminence in the Time of Obama: The Impact of Targeted Killings on the Law of Self-Defense" in the Arizona Law Review; and "Overlapping Refugee Legal Regimes: Closing the Protection Gap During Secondary Forced Displacement," in the Oxford Journal of International Refugee Law. Her multimedia productions include the Black Palestinian Solidarity video and website as well as the Gaza In Context Pedagogical Project, featuring a short documentary.

Reviews

[Rawan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Palestine is not a question, Palestine is a fact.

[Maia · Rating 5 out of 5]

brilliant legal history of palestine that also looks towards futures of palestinian resistance and international solidarity. appreciated her analyses of international law as useful insofar as it is coupled with political movements. overall very insightful !

[Cait · Rating 5 out of 5]

not to be the perennial wife guy, but my wife is more impressive than me [in a lot of ways and specifically] in that the student org with which she spent most of her university days and where she made the most enduring of her college friendships is classed by another organization—one that, famously, claims to oppose discrimination but in fact is, you know, super fucking racist—as a "t*rr*rist group," which fact she discovered when she chaperoned a group of schoolchildren on a field trip to a museum, only to discover herself denounced as a t*rr*st on its walls.

I am so glad that the global outcry for justice and a decolonial liberation for the palestinian people—and if you misread in that statement a call for violence against any jewish people anywhere on the planet, I direct you to erakat's statement that "palestinian sovereignty does not obviate jewish belonging. moreover, palestinians' primary claim is not control; it is to belong"—has grown louder and harder to ignore in the long 138 days since october 7. what I am, most obviously, not glad about is the fact that it took the ramping up of a genocide already over 75 years old for that cry to reach this pitch.

I turned to reading more deeply about palestine—like many people have, as the 6-month wait, even in my giant library system, for the vast majority of books on palestine can attest to—out of a frustrated grief arising not only from the despair of watching a genocide unfold in real time but also from the particular pain of not knowing what to say to dear friends claiming that no action is disproportionate in response to "terrorism." (and at the time, I didn't yet know about israel's long history of the use of the concept of "proportionality" in its legal work.) erakat's book is incredibly straightforward, stripped of emotion, setting forth the legal facts—changing alongside the politically malleable law—of "the question of palestine" and the facts on the ground, and I found her discussion of the state of israel's legal use of this "terrorism" particularly illuminating.

what is terror? what does the world look like? how do we keep living? I, listening (in a bliss so ignorant it now seems unfathomable) to early 2000s country as a child, remember hearing—remember singing along to!—toby keith's violent promise to "put a boot in your ass, it's the american way," remember the shattering of the reputation and careers of the Chicks, three wildly successfully white USian women who dared the barest critique of the US empire's war machine. what is terror? terror for whom? the state, apparently, cannot enact terror. the top definition for "terrorism" on google is "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims"; merriam webster defines it as "the unlawful use or threat of violence especially against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion." terror is violence that is unlawful. terror is violence against the state. lawful violence conducted by the state is not terror. and I'm not interested in redefining terrorism or spinning the narrative to propose that 'the state is the real terrorist!!!!!!1!1' because I have read compelling arguments from palestinians in palestine and the diaspora as well as from other subaltern peoples that that framing is reductive and achieves nothing. but god, how do we live? how do we go on? because we have to. the palestinian people are living, are going on, and we must too.

this "review" sounds fucking cunty; I should probably just save all this for the private notes section and call it a day. I am taking a legal text so stark as to almost—but never quite—be dry and making it about my own emotional response, and in doing so I think I am painting a false picture of this book, which does not need me to cry over it but did enrage me and sicken me while educating me with each minute I spent with it. I'm not trying to sound like a pretentious dillweed fuckwit, and I'm not trying to fucking "virtue signal" or whatever; I'm just trying to put words to the agonizing reality of what it feels like as we bystanders attempt to take action that yields little to no impact for the people most deeply affected.

I didn't bookmark anything because I would have bookmarked the whole book. immediately upon finishing I ordered a physical copy so that I can pore over and annotate the conclusion, and possibly just plain print out highlighted excerpts from it so as to better prepare myself for navigating those conversations in which I do my best to speak with composure and humanity to those friends and fellow human beings with whom I find myself at an impasse.

I envision a future in which everyone is free. I envision a future in which we have thrown off the bonds of capitalism, which is killing us all. I envision a future in which we protect one another from the worst ravages of the devastating years to come. I envision a future in which we care for one another as we all grow increasingly disabled. I envision a future in which we have saved our collective humanity. I feel like I cry every fucking day: there's a genocide on, there's a climate apocalypse on, my brain feels like it's steadily deteriorating if not collapsing, it's all the same goddamn thing within the same goddamn thing. I am a raw nerve, people look at you funny for masking in public, so many would rather close their eyes, somebody rich gets away with something again, a child is killed by a bomb, a child is killed in a mine, another thousand climate refugees begin a slow, inexorable journey toward the safe place that no longer exists and never will again. last year I chaperoned a field trip to the same museum my wife went to all those years ago; the school I now work at goes every year. I am afraid, in a creeping but as-yet ignorable way, of what this year's trip will look like, what my students might be told. "we lived happily during the war," but we, none of us, will be able to for much longer. I can't recall ever reading a work of speculative fiction set in the far future that explicitly names palestinians as still existing, still living, still thriving. I would like to read it, but better to read about that reality would be to live in it, live through it, secure in the truth of that world.

[X · Rating 5 out of 5]

Did not expect this to be so readable, or so exactly *my thing*, legally/academically speaking. A great book!

First of all, I’m having trouble thinking of another academic book that is written as clearly and straightforwardly as this one. I knew very little about the political history of Palestine/Israel, and Erakat provided *just* the right level of historical explanation and detail so that I felt informed but not overwhelmed. The book is organized chronologically which was also fantastic in terms of the way Erakat’s argument built organically over the course of the book. (Maybe the only exception was an unexpected detour to Namibia in the conclusion - but by the end of that section I was totally on board again.) I can’t speak for the experts - maybe if you already know all the history this would be a little repetitive - but I think this book is super readable from a layperson perspective and will absolutely be recommending it to people.

I also loooooooooved the legal angle. I am so fully on board with the “legal work” concept in general - the idea, basically, that it’s less about blackletter law and more about the work and strategy people put in to achieve legal interpretations that are beneficial for their causes, an idea that is wildly relevant not only in international law, as Erakat describes here, but also in, say, American constitutional law - and the way that Erakat lays out facts and quotations here is super effective, so that when she comes in to argue that it’s evidence of the success or failure of parties’ legal work you just think “yeah, duh! It’s obvious!” And I think that’s the mark of excellent writing - when you get to the conclusion and think “well it couldn’t be any other way, could it?”

I also really enjoyed reading this from a personal intellectual perspective - it is extremely up my alley irl. I picked this up because I wanted to learn more about Palestinian history and political context. I did not expect to find the [redacted] elements super fascinating and relevant. And that’s all I’ll say about that!

As I was reading, one big reality hung over everything else - once people have been forced off their land, once their property has been seized and redistributed, it is fundamentally pretty much impossible to reverse that process, especially as more and more time passes. Maybe there are small, case-by-case exceptions, but in general - I mean, is there a successful example in history? You just can’t go back. [I think the Israeli government would probably think they’re a successful example…] So I read this thinking - and what? What is the goal? I just don’t see a way that so many Palestinians would ever be able to return - to their land, to their lives (or really the lives of their parents or grandparents), to the society that once existed there, *as* it existed then.

So Erakat’s takeaways were incredibly gratifying to read. I think in situations where there’s been a past harm, it’s easy to focus on that, to the exclusion of everything else. But in this book I think Erakat is looking at the past not to re-litigate the harm that has happened but to say, “here are the tools that people can use, and have used. Here are the factors that have made them successful, and here are the factors that have made them fail. Now, armed with this knowledge - let’s think about what to do next.” So for a book with this many quotations from Israeli government leaders and military leaders and lawyers that are blatantly pro-ethnic cleansing… I found it surprisingly hopeful.

[Stitching Ghost · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is a deep cut on international law, its shortcomings, its inbuilt colonial aspects and how it played out in regard to Palestine. While it's not necessarily a 101 book (I'd recommend reading The Hundred Years' War on Palestine by Rashid I. Khalidi before reading this one if you're entirely new to the topic) you don't need any particular knowledge of international law to keep up with Erakat's arguments and what little jargon (there's almost none) is present here is explained. It does a great job of showing how the whole thing while complex, as are most things in this world, isn't actually complicated.

[Randall Wallace · Rating 4 out of 5]

“Between 1972 and 2017, the United States used its Security Council veto forty-three times to shield Israel from international censure.” The 1922 British Mandate for Palestine was actually a Mandate AGAINST Palestine – “it required Palestinians’ juridical erasure to achieve self-determination of a settler population in their place.” Palestine’s Jewish population then went from 1/10 the population in 1918 to almost 1/3 by 1936. The Brits had promised to support the Palestinians aspirations for self-determination but then boldly violated their promise. Britain’s interests in the Middle East were to control oil and trade, and to selfishly keep France from taking a piece of the action. In Syria, France “crushed the Arab constitutional experiment”. Funny how both countries then, and today, thwart Arab dreams - so noble. The job of the British Mandate was to make the blatant land grab somehow legal. “British policy demanded Palestinians not exist as a people in order to pave the way for Britain’s colonial ambitions in the Middle East.” Herzl originally considered Argentina and Uganda as a place for the Jews to go, but European Zionists demanded it be Palestine. “The World Zionist Organization successfully lobbied the League [of Nations] to refrain from referring to Palestinians as natives by insisting that Zionist Jews – not yet settled in Palestine – be regarded as natives as well.” Isn’t sidelining people you’ve deemed racially inferior, fun?

Britain had to deploy 25,000 servicemen in Palestine in 1938 because for some bizarre reason, the Palestinians didn’t enjoy having everything taken from them. “In three years, British forces had killed 5,000 Palestinians, wounded 10,000, and detained 5,679, others. They blew up nearly 2,000 homes, destroyed agricultural lands, and exiled a significant portion of the Palestinian leadership. It is estimated that British forces killed, wounded, detained, and/or exiled 10% of the adult male population at the time.” The British Partition fails because Zionists wanted everything faster, and leaving Palestinians with nothing. As Ben-Gurion eloquently said, “We must expel the Arabs and take their places …and if we have to use force – then we have force at our disposal.” After 1948, “the new state [Israel] was delighted that it had reduced the Palestinian population to less than 1/5 of its original size, and it had no intention of disrupting its Jewish majority by permitting refugees to return.” In Dayr Hanna residents complained about Zionists “urinating on residents” [p.57]. I must have missed the section of the Torah that demanded that. Settlers arrived illegally in the West Bank and the government called them soldiers so Israel could maintain “the appearance of being law-abiding.” And who said, “Looks aren’t everything”? Too bad, “by 1967, colonialism and conquest had become delegitimized” and “Israel’s settler-colonial ambitions were now anachronistic and controversial.” Luckily, Israel had Hasbara up one sleeve and endless US funding machine up the other.

Israel was violating Article 49 of the Geneva Convention, but did you know Article 49 was written because Hitler had tried to do the same shameful war crime? “Germany’s Third Reich had forcibly removed local populations from land it occupied – primarily Jews, who were sent into exile, or labor and concentration camps.” Zionist settler-colonialism was partly inspired directly from Hitler’s equally demented racially pure dream for Lebensraum. If Israel today enjoys being a rogue state so much, why, oh why, did it ratify “all four Geneva Conventions back in 1951, indicating its support for them”?

The Hannibal Directive: On page 199, Noura discusses Israel’s Hannibal Directive; “this directive encourages the use of indiscriminate force in order to prevent a capture”. Basically, you actively kill the “bad” guys by risking killing your own, rather than let the “bad” guys take one of your own hostage. It was adopted after Gilad Shalit’s release in 2011, where Israel had to release 1,027 Palestinian prisoners for Shalit. “The Israeli army modified the directive so that field commanders could initiate a Hannibal operation even without authorization from their superior commanders.” The most “moral” army in the world is now officially willing to kill its own; can’t get more moral than that. Let’s watch this puppy in action: In 2014, Ofer Winter, a commander, was missing, and Israel found he was within a 1.5 mile radius. They sealed the perimeter and nailed the area with 500 artillery shells and 100 airstrikes. They soon realized that the most “moral” army on earth had clearly killed Goldin BUT he had NEVER even been captured. Sadism never tasted so sweet. And it wasn’t a total loss as they had just killed “55 children, 36 women, and 5 men over the age of sixty.” That’s what you get these days for NOT being personally chosen by God. Israel “tolerates greater numbers of civilian deaths and injuries so long as that spares Israel’s soldiers from harm.” The Journal of Military Ethics wrote of the Israeli public’s aversion to soldier’s casualties. Who knew the Israeli public were a bunch of pussies? If you don’t want casualties, maybe stop the illegal 75-year occupation.

Zionist Racism Against Darker Fellow Jews: Fayez Sayegh wrote, “The Zionist myth of ‘one Jewish people’ was exploded as soon as Jews from different cultural, ethnic and racial backgrounds were assembled together. Oriental Jews and Black Jews found themselves subject to discrimination by other Jews – i.e., by the Jews of the ‘White Jewish Establishment’.”

Nelson Mandela used Armed Resistance: He said there were no other options in South Africa. He said, “All lawful modes of expressing opposition to this principle [apartheid] had been closed by legislation, and we were placed in a permanent state of inferiority or to defy the government. We chose to defy the law. We first broke the law in a way which avoided and recourse to violence; when this form was legislated against, and then the Government resorted to a show of force to crush the opposition to its policies [shades of Israel], only then did we decide to answer violence with violence.” In 1973, the UN General Assembly passed a resolution that reaffirmed the right of occupied people to resist “by all available means, including armed struggle” – a fact that NO Zionist troll on the internet wants you to know.

Arafat’s address to the UN General Assembly was the first time “a non-state actor had taken the international podium.” He said he wanted Palestine to be a single democratic state, a home to all faiths, and not just Judaism. “Arafat brilliantly made the appeal for a secular democracy.” No wonder why the US media didn’t cover the speech – wanting real democracy instead of faux democracy? Advertisers would never approve. “The General Assembly erupted in thunderous applause. Henry Kissinger was furious.” He said, “That is totally wrong of the United Nations to treat the head of the liberation movement with so much respect.” Of course, Kissinger had no problem treating the dictatorships of Uruguay, Brazil, Chile and Argentina with GREAT respect; it takes great courage to support only the well-financed side. UN Resolution 242 negated the existence of a Palestinian nation, while Resolution 3236 affirmed it “without preconditions.”

In 1975, the UN General Assembly resolution 3379 declared that Zionism is a form of racism. Israeli apartheid intentionally excludes Palestinians from citizenship and demands two distinct legal systems. “The overwhelming majority of Palestinians have not demanded Jewish-Israeli removal in that future, only a relinquishment of their desire to rule.” “Palestinian sovereignty does not obviate Jewish belonging. Moreover, Palestinians’ primary claim is not to control; it is to belong.” Today, 2/3 of Palestinians live in diaspora and forced exile but who insist on native belonging to Palestine.” Israeli historian Benny Morris lamented that Ben-Gurion didn’t carry out a full expulsion of all Palestinians - a thought as morally objectionable as Hitler lamenting he didn’t live to expel all Slavs and Russians from their lands in order to create Lebensraum for his fellow “ethnically pure” fellow racists. What Israel wants is a demographic majority over Palestinians – just like equally morally challenged American racists who still want entitled American whites to have a demographic majority over non-whites.

The PLO is formed in 1964; Fatah is established in Kuwait in 1958. Jordan expels the PLO in 1970, and it goes to Lebanon along with Fatah. Israel then invades Lebanon to destroy the PLO. The PLO then moves to Tunis, Tunisia and its leadership scatters to nine countries. “The expulsion of the PLO from Lebanon in 1982 marked the beginning of the organization’s steady decline.” By 2018, there couldn’t be an independent Palestine because Israeli settlers had increased their stolen holdings 200% between 1993 and 2015. Israeli military law keeps Palestinians from traveling between West Bank and Gaza – how dare Palestinians want to visit friends and family? Israel holds nearly two million Gazans in “a land siege and naval blockade.” “During Operation Cast Lead, Israel destroyed 2,900 homes, 29 schools, 121 commercial and industrial workshops, 60 police stations, and 30 mosques, in addition to the high number of civilian casualties.” Joseph Schumpeter would probably have labelled that “not so creative destruction.”

During the First Intifada, Yitzhak Rabin wins Israel’s greatest honor, the “No Empathy Award” for actually instructing “soldiers to break the bones of children caught throwing stones.” Those of us who read Thomas Suarez’s latest book know that Zionists were famous for throwing stones at Palestinians and Brits before 1948 and not ONE of those rock throwers had their legs broken for doing so. Funny how when Zionists threw stones, they were courageous freedom fighters – but when Palestinian children did the same thing for the same reason - break their legs. Rabin stopped his brutal stance after realizing his violence wasn’t quashing the uprising, this led to attempts at negotiation and his assassination in 1995 for the crime of daring believe Israeli domination was not sustainable. Like Trump and Biden, Israel is capable of only moving to the right - like India under Modi. Fun Fact: when a bird only has a right wing, it only flies in circles.

Did the first suicide attack by Hamas come out of nowhere? In February, an Israeli settler killed twenty-nine Palestinians praying in the Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron at dawn. Two months later is the Hamas attack. If a Hamas member ever killed twenty-nine Jewish people at synagogue, the day would be tattooed on the Zionist consciousness. Worthy vs. unworthy victims. The Al Aqsa Intifada starts after Ariel Sharon not only enters the Haram Al Sharif, the third holiest Muslim site, but does so with 1,000 troops. Such raw courage to go where you have no business being with ONLY 1,000 troops behind you. That there is Zionist courage full throttle.

Israel doesn’t want you to know that under international law, “since the occupied population does not have the means to police or protect itself, the occupying power must limit its force to law enforcement. It cannot wage war or invoke self-defense against a population over whom it exercises effective control and can use lethal violence only as a last resort.” Who knew?

In 1982, Israel brazenly destroys the Iraqi nuclear reactor in Baghdad; Israel said it was an act of self-defense. That reactor was lookin’ at us funny through the telescope! Israel kills US servicemen on the USS Liberty and receives US funding in return, Israel destroys a reactor in clearly non-contiguous country because it comically feels threatened – nothing to see here folks. AIPAC has your Senators all greased and Hasbara has it all under control.

Did Obama ever meet a drone he didn’t like? Obama’s Team did 500 drones strikes – that’s ten times more than Bush’s did. Liberal outcry to Obama droning on and on, was as non-existent as an actual pro-Palestinian US Senator. Zionist trolls love to rant on about how it’s not an occupation stupid because Israel completely left Gaza in 2005. What you tell them is that Article 42 of the Hague Regulations of 1907 clearly states that “a belligerent has effective control of a country as long as it has established its authority and has the ability to exercise it, regardless of the continuous presence of ground troops.” And tell them that in addition, this was affirmed also at Nuremberg. When they keep yammering, remind them “Israel has maintained complete control of its [Palestinian] air space, its seaports, its telecommunications network, its electromagnetic sphere, its tax revenue distribution, and population registry”. In addition, the ICC, and multiple human rights organizations have “acknowledged that Israel remains in effective control of the Gaza Strip. Accordingly, the laws of occupation should remain in force.” Rogue State = Unchecked Narcissism

Israel’s Many Delightful Recent Crystal Meth Outbreaks: Operation Cast Lead (2008), Operation Pillar of Cloud (2012), Operation Protective Edge (2014), Operation Release Pics of Gal Gadot in IDF Gear (2018) and Israel’s present Operation Blame Hamas For Everything (2023-2024).

Good book, very glad I read it. As you can see, I learned a lot.

[Arisha (Free Palestine 🇵🇸) · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was really educational! I learned a lot about Palestine from the international law perspective. However, I made the mistake of listening to this as an audiobook and the author kept referencing diagrams and maps leaving me like 🧍🏽‍♀️🧍🏽‍♀️🧍🏽‍♀️the writing style also was not very engaging and it was extremely dense. It’s not a very good introduction to Palestine, but educational nonetheless

[rara ➶ · Rating 5 out of 5]

highly recommend!! great insight on history and law!!

[Breann Hunt · Rating 4 out of 5]

Going into this book, my initial opinion was "international law doesn't actually matter because U.S.-backed allies just get away with whatever they want". And I'm not saying this book dissuaded me from that opinion-- however, it did compel me to consider the power of (as Erakat describes it) "legal work" for the purposes of liberation-- and conversely, subjugation. I came away from this read more equipped to understand a new angle of the Israel/ Palestine conflict and with a (surprising) greater appreciation for the potential of solidarity in international law to have a meaningful impact.
However, my main gripe with the book is that it suffers severely from a lack of interdisciplinary exposition. I wish Erakat included more historical and political context beyond just expanding on various UN resolutions.

[Michal Lipták · Rating 4 out of 5]

Real tour de force - erudite and unapologetic. Erakat makes the principles of international law and - as title indicates - justice as her starting point and thus has no place for the usual weasel words you read so often on this topic. There are, for example, no laments about "intractability" and "complexity" of the conflict; what's intractable is the effort to establish settler-colonial regime and displace native population while still maintaining an appearance of Western liberal democracy for which such things are anathema in 20th century. But once one recognizes the enterprise to be contradictory - as it objectively is - the situation is quite easy to assess.

Erakat convincingly shows how the legal "complexity" is entirely manufactured by a need to define the situation as sui generis exception since the times British Mandate. What's sui generis is that, "alas", Israel is simply exceptionally late to settler-colonialism, and it takes a lot of creative legal work to mould to law to match the demands of such situation. Erakat in the process meticulously dismantles this obfuscation, convincingly attacking the myths of Palestinian intransigence or of IDF being the "most moral army". On the latter, it's illustrative to quote a longer passage on how Israel consciously inverts the relationship between military and civilian targets, where the duty to protect its own soldiers trumps the necessity to protect the civilian population within enemy territory. It succeeds in this by exempting conflict with Hamas from all established rules of war (either international or civil) and by basically turning every civilian in Gaza into legitimate target through the faintest association with Hamas (whereby the nuances like differentiating between its military and civil wings are eschewed thanks to the universal notion of "terrorism"). From pages 202-203:

That is precisely what Israel did in late December 2008 when it launched a guided missile at a group of young police cadets in the Gaza Strip. The cadets were marching in their graduation ceremony with their families in audience. Within a few minutes of the attack, sixty Israeli jet fighters similarly targeted Hamas police and security forces across the tiny span of the coastal enclave. Israel killed a total of 200 Palestinians in the attack, which initiated Operation Cast Lead, a military offensive in the winter of 2008 to 2009. The police cadets and the Hamas police officers are civilian law enforcement personnel and therefore not legitimate military targets. Israel defended its attack by arguing that once in a state of conflict, Hamas would absorb the officers within its military ranks. This is highly speculative, because all civilian law enforcement in Gaza falls under Hamas's authority, regardless of police officers' political allegiance. Police officers could be members of Fatah or the communist party rather than Hamas, for example, even though they are employed by Hamas by virtue of its governing authority. Although the cadets possessed civilian status, were not definitively members of Hamas, and posed no military threat at the time of their killing, Israel killed them based on their employment by Hamas and to prevent the possibility that they would ever become a threat.

This is a radical reading of humanitarian law. Israel's analysis significantly expands the definition of a legitimate target by working on the basis of unchecked forward-looking speculation and not on incontrovertible evidence of posing a legal threat. It is a risk-averse analysis that places the burnt of any risk on enemy civilians. The equivalent would be to consider nearly all Israelis aged eighteen and above as legitimate targets because they would eventually be conscripted into the army or called to serve in its reservist troops. Under Israel's revised analysis, this disturbing hypothetical is not plausible because the analysis insists that traditional laws of armed conflict remain intact during conventional warfare. Israel narrowly applies its new military directive to non-state actors, thus shielding states from ever being brutally attacked based upon the same logic.

Of course, this comes handy to any state with strong military - or simply military advantage - that feels to tied up by the bullshit of international law. Therefore this revolutionary reading is most probably to become common. Label this or that "terrorist" and then it's all free game, and collateral damage is blamed on terrorists using "human shields". The lessons are currently being learned everywhere from USA to Russia to Iran to Syria. When one throws the principles and values out of window, the price is usually steep.

[Rose · Rating 5 out of 5]

5 star read, this was such a thorough accounting of history, law, and overarching practice regarding Palestine and its respective occupation that I found it well worth reading and learning from. Noura Erakat very brilliantly breaks this down and illuminates several issues in the how and why. Definitely would recommend it as a reference. Still need a bit to unpack my thoughts.

[kubelko bondy · Rating 5 out of 5]

incredibly helpful and exceptionally written! history of of int’l law in israel/palestine from 1917-2018. explores whether/under what conditions int’l law can be used as a tool for palestinian liberation. the conclusion definitely did most of the lifting in that regard but could not have gotten there without the historical framework laid out in the body chapters. would definitely come back to this book as a reference! highly recommend!

[Jory · Rating 5 out of 5]

Brilliant scholarship on the relationship between the law (international law, Israeli law, US law) and Palestine. The law is a tool of politics and this books makes this painfully evident. I want to reread this again, but in awe of all that Erakat tied together here.

[Marcy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Noura Erakat's book is nothing short of brilliant. It's an excellent book for people who want to understand the history of Palestine with the added bonus of situating that history within a legal context. The third chapter - "Pragmatic Revolutionaries" - is especially good as it details the play-by-play of the PLO in the context of the Non-Aligned Movement and the UN in the 1970s, an essential piece of history that isn't always included with the level of detail Erakat supplies. Likewise, the conclusion is critical reading for anyone who is apart of the BDS movement to liberate Palestine - both in terms of strategy as well as analogy - using Namibia and Algeria as different types of touchstones.

[Katie ratherbereadinggg · Rating 4 out of 5]

4-4.5 stars

[Haim Bresheeth · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a masterful study of the way international and some national legal systems are used against the Palestinians, and in support of the crimes of Zionism and Israel. It is clear, incisive, fair, passio0nate, accurate and wide-ranging. It will remove any hope you may nurture about resolving the colonial conflict in Palestine through legal means, but will give you a clear idea of the potential of the law in terms of challenging and pinning down the colonial project. Beautifully written!

[marcus ghee · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very very dense book but a great starter course on a number of the forces that have come together to set the stage for the modern Palestinian struggle. It seems as if whether Palestine plays by the rules or not, the actualization of a Palestinian state remains out of their grasp. Israel has to reckon with building an apartheid state, but in my opinion (and the books, too) that was always the goal. I will definitely have to visit the book again to solidify all the knowledge.

[Sohum · Rating 4 out of 5]

this is an exciting book that brings to bear a few interesting theoretical frameworks to thinking about Palestine. I appreciated Erakat's unrelenting critique and careful rhetorical and legal analysis.

[Dilek Sayedahmed, PhD · Rating 5 out of 5]

In any foreseeable scenario, increased conflicts and violent confrontations are highly probable. History has demonstrated that no community willingly relinquishes its privileges, nor does any community willingly accept a perpetual state of subordination and domination. Thus, the question should not solely center on "avoiding" violence. Instead, the focus should perhaps shift towards achieving an optimal outcome that makes violence "tolerable"—potentially reducing its severity for the affected people.

Building on this foundational insight into violence and privilege, Professor Erakat transitions from theory to praxis, posing the following questions:

- What potential futures can Palestinians create for themselves and for the Jewish-Israeli population that currently holds power?
- How can this troubled history become a story of hope instead of one of mourning?

This path remains undefined; it is yet to be charted. Pursuing it means committing to constructing new possibilities for decolonization and freedom on a larger scale. It is, first and foremost, a commitment to asking different questions. The future of Palestine holds the potential to provide new models for humanity, including legal systems that can restore a sense of wholeness—something Europe has struggled to achieve. And so, Erakat tells us that “to realize this potential, we must turn inward, recognize ourselves as already free, and forge a future where our liberation is not conditional or exclusive, but mutually reinforcing. This remains the promise of Palestine.”

*

Let’s dive in.

Why do some scholars, politicians, and activists continue to discuss the role of law in the complex history of Israel and Palestine, despite the apparent dominance of military power, control, and on-the-ground realities? Even John B. Quigley, a renowned scholar of international and comparative law and the author of the influential work The Case for Palestine: An International Law Perspective, acknowledges that many view a focus on law and rights as "unrealistic" given the political realities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

However, Noura Erakat, a human rights attorney and professor, challenges these skeptics. In Justice for Some, she argues that law and politics are inseparable in the context of Israel and Palestine. She contends that "law is politics," emphasizing that the interpretation and application of law depend on the strategies employed by legal actors and the historical context in which these strategies are pursued. Erakat's book applies this perspective to the century-long struggle of Palestinians against Zionism and Israel, highlighting five disruptive historical periods that created moments of "principled opportunism" or "legal opportunities." During these moments, legal actions by different actors shaped political outcomes—often to the detriment of the Palestinian people.

The result is a sophisticated and meticulously argued tour de force that explains the ongoing statelessness and dispossession of the Palestinian population. It is a work that will both incite indignation and inspire those who hold hope for a resolution rooted in law and human rights for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

*

Jewish sovereignty, being incompatible with Palestinian presence, inevitably leads to fragmentation, partition, separation, and population transfer (Erakat, 2019). This outcome demonstrates how legal and political frameworks are deeply intertwined, as Erakat's analysis of law’s role in shaping political realities highlights. The inverse, however, is not true: Palestinian sovereignty does not negate Jewish belonging. Palestinians' primary claim is not about control but about belonging (Kedar, Amara, & Yiftachel, 2018).

The refusal to center Palestinian claims and challenge the equation of Jewish sovereignty with Palestinian oppression blocks the exploration of more constructive possibilities. This is not about proposing a political solution; those parameters have long acted as an impasse. Instead, centering Palestinian claims envisions a future where Jewish and Palestinian belonging are no longer seen as incompatible (Erakat, 2019).

Zionist opposition to Palestinian return and belonging rests on a zero-sum view: Israel exists if Palestinians do not, and Palestinians exist if Israel does not. Perhaps we should ask: what possibilities arise from Palestinian return and the recognition of their belonging? Palestinian refugees, exiled for seven decades, would return to a memory—often their grandparents' memory (Ash, 2009). Their journey would inherently involve building something new. Returning to Palestine, then, is a journey to an unknown future.

Most Palestinians do not demand the removal of Jewish-Israelis from that future, only a relinquishment of the desire to dominate. Decolonization requires settlers to reimagine themselves within this environment. If Zionists claim their settlement is a return to the land rather than a conquest, they must acknowledge Palestinians on their terms and in their context (Erakat, 2019). Yet Zionism, once established, sought a homeland exogenous to the Middle East, aligned more closely with Europe. Instead of embracing Middle Eastern languages, livelihoods, and peoples, Zionism rejected them. Israel became a site for gathering the Jewish diaspora, perpetuating the displacement of Palestinians (Kedar, Amara, & Yiftachel, 2018).

Gabriel Ash, an Israeli-American analyst, notes this contradiction, observing that the Jewish nationalist population, driven by colonial domination, suffers "from a congenital inability to belong to the land it claims as its homeland" (Ash, 2009). This analysis ties back to Erakat’s broader argument about mutual recognition and belonging, underscoring the necessity of a shared future built on acknowledgment and integration rather than exclusion. He argues that an "Israeliness at home in the Middle East" must be mediated by Palestinians, who have always belonged. What possibilities arise when Jewish-Israelis integrate into the land and broader Middle Eastern context, rather than existing as a satellite state merely located in the Middle East? This opens the door to a shared future rooted in mutual recognition and belonging. And in Justice for Some, this is the shared future Erakat wants us to hold on to.


******************************************

Appendix:

The chapters are roughly structured in chronological order, focusing on five pivotal historical moments:
- the British Mandate period,
- the post-creation decades of Israel,
- the emergence of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO),
- the Oslo Peace process, and
- the period following the events of 9/11.

In the opening chapter, Erakat provides a detailed account of how Britain used the Balfour Declaration and the League of Nations Mandate system to deny self-determination to the majority indigenous Arab population in Palestine while granting it to the minority Jewish immigrant population. This pattern of denying Palestinian nationhood has been upheld by Israel for decades, with Israel consistently asserting that Palestine lacks the status of a nation deserving of self-determination.

Chapter two explores how this denial of Palestinian nationhood has played a central role in Israel's policies and laws, facilitating the establishment of a permanent occupation, first within Israel's pre-1967 borders and then in the occupied territories. Israel claims that the West Bank and Gaza are "disputed territories" rather than occupied lands, thus evading the application of occupation law. Furthermore, Israel argues that UN Security Council Resolution 242 grants it the right to retain parts of the West Bank for security purposes, justifying settlement construction and territorial annexation. Erakat contends that this interpretation is a minority view in international law, yet it has been shielded from significant repercussions largely due to American support. Notably, the Trump administration's proposed "peace plan" involved Israel annexing substantial portions of the West Bank, further solidifying Israel's stance that prolonged actions ultimately gain international acceptance.

Chapter three delves into how the PLO succeeded in securing international recognition of Palestinian nationhood. This was partly achieved through advocacy for General Assembly resolutions 3236 and 3237, recognizing the Palestinian right to self-determination and designating the PLO as the sole representative of the Palestinian people. The PLO also achieved non-member observer group status at the UN and played a role in the adoption of GA resolution 3379, which condemned Zionism as a form of racism. This chapter also addresses the internal PLO struggle between revolutionaries seeking complete liberation of Palestine and pragmatists open to a two-state solution. By the 1980s, PLO pragmatists gained prominence, paving the way for the Oslo Accords.

In chapter four, Erakat critically examines the Oslo Accords, focusing on the PLO's negotiation efforts. The PLO is criticized for hastily embracing a negotiation framework on Israeli terms, effectively forsaking its previous legal achievements and succumbing to Israeli negotiation strategies. This outcome was partially driven by existential threats the PLO faced, such as expulsion from Lebanon to North Africa, the emergence of alternative leadership, and isolation after the Gulf War. Desperate for relevance, the PLO accepted a limited autonomy agreement—a concept long promoted by Israel. While the Oslo Accords acknowledged Palestinian nationhood, they did not compel Israel to respect Palestinian self-determination and independence. Instead, they effectively designated the newly formed Palestinian proto-government as subcontractors for Israel's occupation, while providing legal and political cover for continued settlement expansion.

The final chapter discusses Israel's redefinition of international law regarding the use of force against non-state actors. To justify targeted killings during the Second Intifada, Israeli lawyers argued that the conflict was unique: it was neither a traditional war nor deserving of the rights granted by the laws of armed conflict, yet intense enough to justify war-like actions. Israel asserted the right to eliminate suspected enemies as a form of national self-defense. Initially, both the Clinton and Bush administrations condemned these assassinations. However, after September 11, 2001, successive U.S. administrations embraced Israeli counterterrorism policies and their legal justifications, supporting Erakat's argument that breaches of established laws become normalized once accepted by a sufficient portion of the international community.

While much of the book scrutinizes Israel's legal maneuvers, Erakat also criticizes Palestinian leaders. She rightly critiques the PLO's ill-fated negotiation efforts during the Oslo Accords but gives little indication that a more coherent negotiation strategy could have yielded better outcomes—given the inherent power imbalance.

[Stella ☆Paper Wings☆ · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fantastic legal history of Israel and Palestine. Noura Erakat is a tireless advocate for Palestinian liberation, and while I think I'm a bit left of her on many of these issues, this book is a truly fantastic resource.

I was also pleasantly surprised at just how informative and accessible this book is. I'm personally very interested in, if critical of, international law (and recently graduated with a legal studies degree, yay!), so I read this mainly out of that interest, but it's actually a great book on the history of the occupation of Palestine in general. Although Erakat is herself an international law expert, you don't have to be one to read this! You probably need at least a passing interest in law, but all the legal concepts are pretty well explained.

Part of the strength of Erakat's arguments is that she shows how Israel has weaponized international law (I-Law) throughout its history. Similarly, the Palestinian Authority and Palestinian liberation groups have tried (successfully and unsuccessfully) to use I-Law to their advantage, but more than anything else, this book demonstrates the great limitations of international governance systems.

This book provides some great counterarguments to questions like "Why did Palestinian leaders reject ___ agreement with Israel?" or "Why can't Palestinians be nonviolent?" The first few chapters also include in-depth background on the legal dimenstions of how the modern state of Israel came to be and how the United States became such a close ally of Israel.

Like any book, this shouldn't be where your reading on Palestine or Middle Eastern politics starts or ends, but it's a great addition to your bookshelf — especially if you're looking for a legal perspective like I was.

[Antoinette Van Beck · Rating 5 out of 5]

what an incredibly comprehensive legal history of palestine! i think some parts went a little over my head, but on the whole this explained a lot of the intricacies of titles and legality (especially in the context of a world that centers itself on western hegemony and economic power) that have confused me in the past. as long as there is an occupation in palestine, the resistance will never die.

[Aaron Daniel Beckwith Lazarte-Berkowitz · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was great!

[lulu · Rating 4 out of 5]

noura discusses crucial aspects of the political history of palestine from a law perspective such as the oslo peace process and the role of the US, UK and UN in its occupation. really important info on the laws broken and events that have happened through out the occupation - however, must say, a lack of acknowledgement of the resistance and its goals.

[Keelan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Erakat has powerful ideas about power and the law, and is very practical in her approach—even prescient at times. By giving this book 4 stars, I have increased the value I imbue in such a rating.

[Mario Reads · Rating 4 out of 5]

Informative and well written. Strong book overall.

[Nadine Abdallah · Rating 5 out of 5]

Noura is brilliant. I found myself revisiting chapters to understand the power of words in international legal frameworks. Powerful historical account in the lens of international law.

[Saima Iqbal · Rating 4 out of 5]

took me a while to get thru bc the history is, of course, dense and the argument academic but the book is clear and sharp!

erakat maintains that what the law says and what it means depends on the distribution of geopolitical power; that Israel upkeeps its settlement project via sui generis rule making + unpunished law violation. she also explores the relative success/failure of the PLO’s political strategies across various historical contexts, giving the reader a grounded sense of what liberation might require. (if you’re curious about how other decolonial projects compare to palestine’s, this is the book for you!) the ending chapter on what future considering Palestinian demands would look like was sobering yet beautiful. historians often argue that the founding of Israel feels anachronistic; fittingly so, the way out requires an as yet uncharted fight.

[Robert Potter · Rating 5 out of 5]

Noura Erakat’s fantastic treatise on Palestinian freedom is a must-read for anyone interested in getting an in-depth, alternative view of a conflict that has proven itself intractable for several decades.

Erakat, who is Palestinian, walks you through the history, starting with the creation of Israel practically out of thin air and continuing to present day. In it, she delves through the twists and turns of international law and its manipulation for the better and for the worse.

Justice for Some is informative, well-researched, and will leave you wanting to learn more by the end of it. I can’t recommend the book strongly enough. Go read it now!

[Maryam Hye · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wonderful in-depth analysis of the ongoing Israel-Palestine conflict from a legal perspective. Highly readable for anyone interested in the role of international law and its approach to the hardly black-and-white history of two neighbors.

[Gerardo Romo · Rating 5 out of 5]

I highly recommended this to any legal worker interested in justice. Noura Erakat discusses the limits & potential of the law while demonstrating the type of creativity this work urgently needs.