Acceso usuarios
It may be that only in Middle East negotiations would the interpretation of a century-old letter from a British official addressed to a tribal Sheikh be considered a topical legal issue. The reality is, however, that the parties in the Middle East conflict are still interpreting, for example, the 1915 correspondence between Sir Henry McMahon, the British High Commissioner in Egypt, and Sharif Hussein of Mecca. Kattan's book is an invaluable, albeit partisan, resource book for those of us who enjoy delving into such minutiae of the legal arguments of Israelis and Palestinians.
Seemingly arcane issues of early 20th century international law are solemnly debated whenever Israeli and Palestinian lawyers get together to try to solve their problems. This reviewer had the experience of being the legal advisor to the Israeli delegation at the post-Madrid Israeli�Palestinian talks held in Washington from 1991 to 1994. A large part of the negotiating sessions consisted of both sides setting out in detail their interpretations and comments on Middle Eastern legal history. Kattan's book, with its multitude of references to legal authorities, including many Israeli scholars, covers some of the issues we debated, including the history of Zionism, the 1922 Palestine Mandate, the 1947 Partition Plan, and Israel's declaration of independence. At one stage in the negotiations, a US State Department official called me aside and asked me, in the usual American forthright style, �Why don�t the two sides cut the crap and get down to real business?� I tried to explain to my American colleague that setting out one's legal position in international law is an essential stage in any Middle Eastern negotiations. It serves as a form of catharsis. My American colleague refrained from complaining, as John Foster Dulles is reputed, most probably apocryphally, to have complained, �Why can�t the Jews and �
