Full paper:<p><a href="https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24733670/toward-nakba-as-a-legal-concept-rabea-eghbariah.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24733670/toward-nakba...</a>
You can just go read the paper here:<p><a href="https://columbialawreview.org/content/toward-nakba-as-a-legal-concept/" rel="nofollow">https://columbialawreview.org/content/toward-nakba-as-a-lega...</a>
Perhaps because it's hard to take the paper seriously without a consideration of Israel's point of view?<p>I'm not trying to justify <i>any</i> of Israel's actions. I personally have mixed opinions, and for some, I do think that serious international crimes have been committed.<p>But the doesn't take into account that at least some of Israel's actions might legitimately be motivated by self defense. That's not how you formulate a framework; that's how you concoct a screed. It's a list of grievances, not an argument.