Prof. Levine’s analysis of the right of self-determination issue falls wide of the mark. It is a legal, not cultural issue. There is no Jewish right of self-determination. Here a classic example of the argument, this by David Horowitz:
“To endorse a platform that demands the elimination of the world’s only Jewish state, which was revived in 1948 on the basis of a UN vote a year earlier, is anti-Semitism of the first order, prejudice against Jews. To advocate that the Jewish nation, uniquely, does not have any right to sovereignty, that its national movement should be eradicated — that’s discrimination and incitement. To assert that the Jewish people has no right to sovereignty in the only place on earth where it has ever been sovereign, never wanted to leave and always sought to return; to demand, that is, not that Israel live peaceably alongside a Palestinian state, but that it be fully replaced by a Palestinian state — this is unconscionable.”
David Horovitz, Corbyn, Who Sought Israel’s Demise, Is an Anti-Semite. Labour Must Kick Him Out, The Times of Israel (circa 22 August 2018). https://www.timesofisrael.com/corbyn-who-sought-israels-demise-is-an-anti-semite-labour-must-kick-him-out/
The legal right of self-determination is bestowed by the U.N. Charter Chapter XI. The “peoples” entitled to self-determination are those that at the time of the Charter’s adoption resided in European colonies and trust territories established under the League of Nations. https://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/un-charter-full-text/
More importantly, the “peoples” entitled to self-determination are the *entire* population of the given colony or territory, not a Jewish subset. This was firmly established by a decision of the International Court of Justice earlier this year:
“States have consistently emphasized that respect for the territorial integrity of a non-self-governing territory is a key element of the exercise of the right to self-determination under international law. The Court considers that the peoples of non-self-governing territories are entitled to exercise their right to self-determination in relation to their territory as a whole, the integrity of which must be respected by the administering Power. It follows that any detachment by the administering Power of part of a non-self-governing territory, unless based on the freely expressed and genuine will of the people of the territory concerned, is contrary to the right to self-determination.”
Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965, ICJ (25 February 2019), pg. 38, https://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/169/169-20190225-01-00-EN.pdf (.) See also V. Gudeleviciute, Does the Principle of Self-Determination Prevail over the Principle of Territorial Integrity?, 2:2 Int. J. Baltic Law (2005), pp. 57-58; see also V. Gudeleviciute, Does the Principle of Self-Determination Prevail over the Principle of Territorial Integrity?, 2:2 Int. J. Baltic Law (2005), pp. 57-58.
Israel’s claim of a right of self-determination depends on just such a detachment. But it is *all* of the citizens of Mandate Palestine Jews, Arabs, Christians, etc. who have that right. The purported Jewish right of self-determination exists only in fraudulent Zionist propaganda. It sounds plausible; but its factual worth is nothing.
That the “two-state solution” was constructed on a foundation that would *impose* a division of the Territory of Palestine into two states was always fundamentally at odds with the principle of self-determination. That was why the Security Council never took up the issue of the Partition Plan, over strenuous objections of the Arab nations.