From: eggertj@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert x6127 g41)
Subject: Re: Eggert vs. Livni
Reply-To: eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu
Organization: MIT Lincoln Lab - Group 41
	<1992Aug24.131643.9498@das.harvard.edu>
	<EGGERTJ.92Aug24114852@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu>
	<BtJsL7.9yu@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca>
Date: 25 Aug 92 16:45:53

In article <BtJsL7.9yu@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> idfriedm@hertz.uwaterloo.ca (id friedman) writes:
>   In article <EGGERTJ.92Aug24114852@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu> eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu writes:
>   >In article <1992Aug24.131643.9498@das.harvard.edu> adam@endor.uucp (Adam Shostack) writes:
>   >>   Resolution 242 Nov 22, 1967
>   >>
>   >>   The Security Council,
>   >>   ...
>   >>   1.  Affirms the fulfillment of the charter principles requires the
>   >>   establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which
>   >>   should include the application of both of the following principles:
>   >>
>   >>   i.  Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in
>   >>   the recent conflict;
>   >>   ii.  Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect
>   >>   for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and
>   >>   political independence of every state in the area and their right to
>   >>   live in secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of
>   >>   force;
>   >
>   >Thus the UN calls for a land-for-peace deal.  Jake would have you
>   >think that the UN only asks that such a deal be considered, as if
>   >other options were equally acceptable to the UN.  To the contrary, the
>   >UN Security Council required the warring parties to come to peace, and
>   >this peace should be a land-for-peace arrangement.  Until Israel
>   >complies with 1.i, and Israel's enemies comply with 1.ii, they remain
>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>     Israel has withdrawn from most of the territory.

"Most" here is presumably defined by geographical area.  One could
easily well choose another measure, such as population or number of
holy religious sites, which would indicate that Israel has not
withdrawn from most of the territory.

>     There is ** evidence **
>     to indicate that  Israel isn't required to withdraw from ** all ** of the
>     territories. ( That debate has been milked for all its worth). 

Unfortunately, I didn't see that debate.  Perhaps one should ask the
UN Security Council whether Israel is indeed required under 242 to
withdraw from all of the Occupied Territories, rather than debating
based on uncited "evidence".

>     Nevertheless,
>     Israel has fulfilled i) better than all of the Arab countries except for Egypt
>    have fulfilled ii). 

This is not at all clear.  First, it is very difficult to say that
compliance in i) is better than compliance in ii), because different
measures have to be applied.  You are apparently comparing the
fraction of occupied land mass returned in i) to the fraction of
nations at peace in ii).  This sounds like apples and oranges to me.

The simple fact of the matter is that Israel and Egypt have cut a deal
to fulfill 242 partially, and that Israel and the rest of its enemies
have pretty much chosen to ignore the rest of 242.

>     Now, since the resolution calls for ** both ** of these conditions, why is
>     Israel supposed to go all out on condition i), without the Arabs making
>     a move on condition ii)?

Simple.  Israel isn't supposed to.  Israel didn't go partway on
condition i) without the Arabs (i.e. Egypt) going partway on ii).

Israel also shouldn't build obstacles (i.e. settlements in occupied
territories) that both violate international law and obstruct the
implementation of UN resolution 242.
--
=Jim  eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert)