The National Lawyers Guild. What went wrong in 67 years?

Early this year, the National Lawyers Guild joined extremist group Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP)  in opposing a California State Senate resolution condemning anti-Semitism on campus.  It was the latest ignoble gesture from an organization that has clearly forgotten its roots.

 

On May 14, 1948, eleven minutes after Israel's proclamation of independence, U.S. President Harry Truman signed an executive order granting de-facto recognition to the Jewish State. In an article published in the National Lawyers Guild Law Review shortly afterward,(8 Law. Guild Rev 441 1948) Phillip Baum writes urging full recognition of Israel, stating that governments with far less stability have been regularly given full recognition. 

He concludes that the conditions necessary  to recognize (either de facto or de jure) a nation state have been fulfilled, by considering both international law, as well as US precedent:

 

1. The existence of a government factually independent of any other state
2. The existence of a government competent to make its authority effective by securing the habitual obedience of the bulk of the population
3. The existence of a government willing to discharge its international obligations
4. The existence of a clearly defined territory

Baum concludes “The Israeli Government has established itself as a living organism… It is entitled to sit at the council of nations as a full fledged member. Its right to do so has been fully recognized by 15 countries”

 

Less than seven months later, President Truman extended full de-jure recognition to Israel.

 

Baum’s essay is interesting  as an example of just how far off course the National lawyers Guild has strayed in the last 67 years- emerging from early advocacy of the Jewish state to complete denial of Israel's right to exist. Current Guild claims that the Palestinians are the indigenous victims of colonialist Europeans are completely negated by the early Guild writings that fails to mention even the existence of a "Palestinian" people.

Baum's criteria in the Guild law review  provides an interesting and yet unmet framework for the recognition of a future Palestinian state. Could  there possibly be anyone on either side of this issue that believes that Hamas or Fatah constitute an effective authority willing to meet their international obligations?

Gaza Flotilla Action Permitted Under International law

Why,yes, thank you for asking. Israel's actions towards the Gaza Armada were legal under International Law.

San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994

PART III - BASIC RULES AND TARGET DISCRIMINATION
SECTION V : NEUTRAL MERCHANT VESSELS AND CIVIL AIRCRAFT
Neutral merchant vessels

67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:

(a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture;
(b) engage in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy;
(c) act as auxiliaries to the enemy s armed forces;
(d) are incorporated into or assist the enemy s intelligence system;
(e) sail under convoy of enemy warships or military aircraft; or
(f) otherwise make an effective contribution to the enemy s military action, e.g., by carrying military materials, and it is not feasible for the attacking forces to first place passengers and crew in a place of safety. Unless circumstances do not permit, they are to be given a warning, so that they can re-route, off-load, or take other precautions.

A different interpretation here:

Paragraph 47 lists ships that are exempt from attack.
(c) vessels granted safe conduct by agreement between the belligerent parties including:

(ii) vessels engaged in humanitarian missions, including vessels carrying supplies indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, and vessels engaged in relief actions and rescue operations;

The flotilla does not meet the minimum requirement because it was not granted permission by the other party of the blockade, Israel.

Even if it had been, the next paragraph mentions a major exception:

48. Vessels listed in paragraph 47 are exempt from attack only if they: (a) are innocently employed in their normal role;
(b) submit to identification and inspection when required; and
(c) do not intentionally hamper the movement of combatants and obey orders to stop or move out of the way when required.