1 See, e.g., Nicosia, Francis R., Zionism and Anti-Semitism In Nazi Germany (2008)Google Scholar; Birnbaum, Pierre, The French Radical Right: From Anti-Semitic Zionism to Anti-Semitic Anti-Zionism , in Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism In Historical Perspective: Convergence and Divergence 145 (Herfed, Jeffrey., 2007)Google Scholar.

2 Hitler, Adolf, Mein Kampf 324–25 (Manheim, Ralph trans., 1943)Google Scholar, quoted in Marcus, Kenneth L., Jurisprudence of the New Anti-Semitism , 44 Wake Forest L. Rev. 371, 398 n.197 (2009)Google Scholar.

3 See Friedman, Isaiah, Palestine, A Twice Promised Land?: Vol. 1, The British, the Arabs & Zionism, at xxi–xxiii (2000)Google Scholar. “The term ‘independence’ was merely a euphemism for supersession of Turkish rule by British and French in their respective spheres of influence.” Id. at xxiii.

4 See, e.g., Paris, Timothy J., Britain, The Hashemites and Arab Rule 1920–1925: The Sherifian Solution 32 (2003)Google Scholar.

5 The phrase “best endeavours” is occasionally found in international agreements. See, e.g., Annex VI to the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty, Art. 5(4), June 17, 2005, 45 ILM 5 (2006). However, the term “best efforts” appears to be more common. See, e.g., Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, Art. 23(4)(b)(1), Sept. 28, 1995, Isr.-PLO, 36 ILM 551 (1997) (obliging each side to use “best efforts” to adopt legislation comporting with GATT-TRIPS). Either phrase can carry a legal obligation. See, e.g., Nash, Marian (Leich), Contemporary Practice of the United States, 88 AJIL 719, 739 (1994)Google Scholar (describing an arbitral award finding that “the United Kingdom had not fulfilled its ‘best efforts’ obligation” to ensure that airline user charges were reasonable). Cf. Carlos Manuel, Vázquez, The Four Doctrines of Self-Executing Treaties , 89 AJIL 695, 713 (1995)Google Scholar (“Complying with an obligation to ‘use our best efforts’ . . . requires the consideration and balancing of numerous disparate demands on our resources to determine what the ‘best’ we can do under the circumstances is.”).

6 Perhaps the most famous example in the Anglo-American common law of contracts is Wood v., Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon , 118 N.E. 214 (N.Y. 1917)Google Scholar, argued twelve days after the issuance of the Balfour Declaration and decided a month later. Wood promised “to use reasonable efforts to bring profits and revenues into existence.” Id. at 215.

7 Resolution Concerning the Future Government of Palestine, GA Res. 181 (II) (Nov. 29, 1947).

8 See, e.g., Brownlie, Ian, Principles of Public International Law 163-64 (6th ed. 2003)Google Scholar (noting that “the resolution of 1947 containing a partition plan for Palestine was probably ultra vires . . .”) (quoted by Kattan at 321 n.72).

9 See, e.g., Morris, Benny, 1948: The First Arabisraeli War (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Morris, Benny, The Birth of The Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited (2004)Google Scholar; All That Remains: The Palestinian Villages Occupied and Depopulated by Israel in 1948 (Khalidi, Walid ed., 1992)Google Scholar.

10 See, e.g., Karsh, Efraim, Palestine Betrayed (2010)Google Scholar; Karsh, Efraim, The Arab-Israeli Conflict: The Palestine War 1948 (2002)Google Scholar.

11 See Island of Palmas (Neth./U.S.), 2 R.I.A.A. 829 (Perm. Ct. Arb. 1928) (Huber, sole arb.).

12 See Avishai, Bernard, A Separate Peace , N.Y. Times, Feb. 13, 2011 Google Scholar, §MM (Magazine), at 36 (quoting President Abbas).

13 See Memorandum of Conversation of Israeli Ambassador Elath and Deputy Under Secretary Rusk (July 28, 1949), reprinted in [1949] 6 Foreign Relations of the United States 1261, 1262 (1977) (reporting that Ambassador Elath said Israel “had decided to permit the return of 100,000 Arab refugees,” but this proposal “was based on the assumption that the Arab states would be willing to conclude peace at Lausanne” and that the Security Council arms embargo would be maintained). As Kattan notes, Israel apparently had in mind repatriation of only 75,000, as it took the position that 25,000 had already “infiltrated” back into Israel (p. 226).

14 Quoting R. Shiloah to C. de Boisanger (Lausanne), Aug. 31, 1949, in Yemima Rosenthal, 4 Documents on the Foreign Policy of Israel, May–December 1949, at 418 (1986); see also Telegram, Porter to Acheson (July 28, 1949), reprinted in Foreign Relations, supra note 13, at 1266 (reporting that Shiloah said that “Israel could not be expected to admit large number of refugees if Arab states had no intention of making sincere efforts to reach peaceful settlement”).

15 “Dept considers Israel shld absorb approx 400,000 Arab refugees and residents, of which Israel estimates 150,000 are already there. However, you should avoid US responsibility for any specific figures.” Telegram, Acheson to U.S. Delegation at Lausanne (July 28, 1949), reprinted in Foreign Relations, supra note 13, at 1267.

16 See id. (“Balance of refugees outside Israel will be absorbed almost entirely by Syria and Jordan including central Palestine.”).

17 See Xavier, Sujith, Book Review, 11 German L. J. 1038, 1044 (2010)Google Scholar (reviewing Kattan, Victor, From Coexistence to Conquest: International Law and the Origins of the Arabisraeli Conflict 1891–1949 (2009)Google Scholar).

18 See, e.g., Mutua, Makau, What is TWAIL? 94 ASIL PROC 31, 31 (2000)Google Scholar (“The regime of international law is illegitimate.”). For more on TWAIL, see, for example, Obiora Chinedu, Okafor, Newness, Imperialism and International Legal Reform in Our Time: A TWAIL Perspective , 43 Osgoode Hall L.J. 171 (2005)Google Scholar; Anghie, Antony & Chimni, B. S., Third World Approaches to International Law and Individual Responsibility in Internal Conflicts , 2 Chinese J. Int’l L. 77 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19 Allain, Jean, On Coming to Terms with the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: From Coexistence to Conquest: International Law and the Origins of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1891–1949, Victor Kattan , 12 J. Hist. Int’l L. 155, 155, 158 (2010)Google Scholar.

20 For example, Kattan says that “[t]hree members of the Board of Governors of the British Institute on International and Comparative Law . . . threatened to resign” over the Institute’s publication of Kattan’s book The Palestine Question in International Law, an edited collection of essays. Kattan writes that one Board member “even had the gall to call up one of the Israeli contributors . . . to ask why he had agreed to have his article republished in the edited collection . . .” (p. 330 n.6).