Comrade Raed sent me this regarding the debate form yesterday: "What you said is that BDS does not consider that international law rules supreme, which means that BDS accepts to play the debatable game of international law, which could be what joins its many components together, but it does not mean that if international law fails to present the Palestine problem with solutions, that BDS is gonna not look for its own interpretation for the solution and stand still.
Norman is replying to you with quotes of proof of recognition of international law, which is like a repetition of his own claim, but does not constitute an answer to you. Nowhere does Barghouti or the BDS call say that international law is the final arbiter. BDS's call text even begins (1st paragraph) by adding "Universal principles of human rights" to international law, and Barghouti ends his text by adding "Palestinian rights" (last line), which leaves the solution open to many other interpretations. Not just that, the body of the BDS call text invokes UN resolutions "since 1948", which includes the solution to the problem of the refugees, contrary to later resolutions. International law invoked here is not in contradiction with the refusal of the specific "two state solution" promoted by Oslo (and not the 1947 two state resolution)."
Norman is replying to you with quotes of proof of recognition of international law, which is like a repetition of his own claim, but does not constitute an answer to you. Nowhere does Barghouti or the BDS call say that international law is the final arbiter. BDS's call text even begins (1st paragraph) by adding "Universal principles of human rights" to international law, and Barghouti ends his text by adding "Palestinian rights" (last line), which leaves the solution open to many other interpretations. Not just that, the body of the BDS call text invokes UN resolutions "since 1948", which includes the solution to the problem of the refugees, contrary to later resolutions. International law invoked here is not in contradiction with the refusal of the specific "two state solution" promoted by Oslo (and not the 1947 two state resolution)."
