Book Review: From Coexistence To Conquest: International Law And The Origins Of The Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1891- 1949, by Victor Kattan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BETWEEN 1915 AND 1917, as part of its eastern strategy during the First World War, Great Britain made three different promises regarding the future of Palestine and the Middle East.At the time, Palestine and the neighbouring lands were still part of the beleaguered Ottoman Empire, and Great Britain was engaged in a titanic war against Turkey and its allies, Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire.These separate British promises-to the Arabs, the French, and the European Zionist movement-were ambiguous, laced with imperial self-interest, and, most tragically for the peoples of the region, irreconcilable with each other.Almost a century later, the Middle East is still reaping the whirlwind.To the Arabs living in the Levantine provinces of the Ottoman Empire, Great Britain promised independence if they would initiate a revolt against their Turkish masters.In a series of letters exchanged in 1915 and 1916 between Sir Henry McMahon, the British High Commissioner in Cairo, and Hussein Ibn Ali, Sherif of Mecca, Great Britain pledged that it would support "the independence of the Arabs in all of the regions within the limits demanded by the Sherif of Mecca," which would include much of present-day Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, and Israel/Palestine.'This pledge of support was the most congruent 1.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.006 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".