From: wmuhanna@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Waleed A Muhanna)
Subject: Re: Fair Swap
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 01:06:37 GMT

In article <1992Sep7.185144.5501@das.harvard.edu> adam@endor.uucp (Adam Shostack) writes:
>In article <1992Sep4.221834.14661@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> wmuhanna@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Waleed A Muhanna) writes:
>>
>>In article <1992Sep3.201539.9597@das.harvard.edu> adam@sparkle.uucp (Adam Shostack) writes:
>>>Are all of Israels teritorial gains in 1948 illegal?  Are you going to
>>>call for Israeli withdrawl as soon as you have your new state?
>
>>I'm glad you asked this question.
>
>I'm glad you answered it.
>
>>The fact is that UNSC Res. 242 sought to deal with the 1967 hostilities and 
>>does not address the question of Israel's borders.  Thus while it might appear
>>to some that in passing 242 the UNSC has tacitly resigned itself to Israel 
>>keeping the fruits of the 1948 zionist conquest of Palestine, technically 
>>and under strict legal terms, Israel's 1948 territorial gains remain unlawful 
>>until a final settlement with the Palestinians is reached.
>
>Nope, 242 specifically says:
>
><242> 1.  Affirms the fulfillment of the charter principles requires the
><242> establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which
><242> should include the application of both of the following principles:
> 
><242> i.  Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in
><242> the recent conflict;
>          ------
>
><242> ii.  Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect
><242> for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and
><242> political independence of every state in the area and their right to
><242> live in secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of
>              ------
><242> force;
> 
>Clearly, the UN refers to returning (some of) the territory occupied
>in the recent conflict.  

You keep ignoring the fact that the references to "withdrawal" and to
"secure..." ARE SUBJECT to the general principle of the
"inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war," which is
stated in the preamble of UNSC Res. 242 and which governs all that
follows.

>Authors of the reolution have spoken on how
>Jerusalem was explicitly left out,

As Brendan already noted, Goldberg does not constitute the Security
Council.  Further, just because Jerusalem isn't mentioned by name 
does not mean it was "left out" as far as withdrawal is concerned.

If withdrawal was not intended to apply to Jerusalem, then perhaps you
can explain why in 1980 the Security Council issued an unconditional 
call on Israel to withdraw from the Golan, Gaza Strip and West Bank, 
including Jerusalem.  ``Reaffirming that acquisition of territory by force is
inadmissible,'' it referred to ``the overriding necessity to end the
prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967,
including Jerusalem.'' (Ref. S.C. Res.  476, June 1980).  If 242 was
not intended to apply to Jerusalem, then why did the UNSC
declare Israel's annexation of Jerusalem, ``null and void''?

And why in 1991 the UNSC passed Res. 681 ``reaffirming the obligation
of Member States under the United Nation Charter,'' ``reaffirming
further the principle of the inadmissibility of acquisition
of territory by war set forth in Security Council Resolution 242 (1967),''
and declaring that the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 ``is applicable
to all territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem.''

>as was the word "the" which some
>people wish was in 1.i.

In addition to what I said above, let's recall the undeniable fact that
the French (and Russian) text of 242, which are equally authentic as 
UN records, do not omit the article "the."   

But even if the article "the" was missing in all texts, it would simply
mean that the 242 was drafted so as not to exclude *minor*, mutually
agreeable, adjustments, PROVIDED that such modifications did not
materially offend the general principle (stated in the res. preamble)
of the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war."

It is well known that almost all the UNSC members wanted a total 
withdrawal.   Contrary to what Goldberg allegedly have said (I am still
waiting for someone to post the actual text), even the US seemingly
wanted that.  Here is what William Rogers, the US Secritary of State at the 
time, said:
	``We believe that while recognized political boundries must be
	  established, and agreed upon by the parties, any changes
	  in the existing lines should not reflect the weight of the
	  conquest and should be confined to insubstantial alterations
	  required for mutual security.   We do not support expansionism.
	  We believe troops must be withdrawn as the Resolution provides."   
	   (NYT,11/12/69)

>
>242 does not make the Israeli gains of 1948 illegal.

Just because it does not explicitly declare the gains of the
1948 zionist conquest illegal, that clearly does not make them
legal either.  Under international law, there can lawfully be NO
territorial gain from war.  So until a final settlement is
reached with the Palestinians, those territorial gains remain
unlawful.

>In contrast, it
>tacitly acknowledges them, and further affirms the right of each
>state, including Israel, to secure borders, which the 1948 borders
>were not....

Again, until a final settlement is reached, legally the fruits of the 
1948 conquest remain unlawful.  Until the Palestine issue is settled, 
any claim that Israel makes (on any territory within mandate 
Palestine) can be just as legally made by the Palestinians.

Your claim that because the Palestinians rejected the profoundly unfair
partition resoultion, that this somehow "nullifies" the resolution,
has no basis in law.   In no way does the Palestinian refusal in 1948 
to accept the partitioning of their homeland take away any of their
rights, nor does it confer upon Israel the right to aggrivate a wrong.

As Hijab said, what most Israelis do not realize is that today
the Palestinians are offering them a golden opportunity for a deal 
which would be highly favorable to Israel.  The Palestinians 
have declared their willingness to accept a state in only 1/4 of their
ancestral homeland.  Should Israel choose not to make such
a deal, it would eventually have to make peace on terms which 
give far greater weight to the U.N. Partition Resolution.

Waleed Muhanna
-=-
"You can build a throne out of bayonets, but you can't sit on it long"
						- B.Yeltsen