From: adam@sparkle.uucp (Adam Shostack)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast,misc.headlines
Subject: Re: Fair Swap
Date: 3 Sep 92 20:15:39 GMT
Article-I.D.: das.1992Sep3.201539.9597
Organization: Aiken Computation Lab, Harvard University

In article <1992Sep3.192057.29754@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> wmuhanna@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Waleed A Muhanna) writes:
>
>In article <1992Aug31.200824.9011@colorado.edu>, perlman@qso.Colorado.EDU 
>(Eric S. Perlman) asserts:
>>And E. Jerusalem is *not* occupied territory. 
>     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Really? Just because you say so?  For the umpteen time, point of fact is that 
>the UN and virtually the entire world, excluding the Israeli government and 
>Perlman (as usual, of course), believe otherwise. 

Leave me out of your lemming list, please.  I choose to believe what I
believe, and if that puts me at odds with 80% of the world, so be it.
(I think MS-Windows is ugly and useless too, despite the fact that
millions of people think otherwise.)

>  Iraq too claimed that 
>"Kuwait was *not* occupied territory," but the world didn't seem to 
>agree with such assertion either.

Iraq has no historical presense in Kuwait.  Jews, and Israelis have
historical presense in Jerusalem.  Was thier presense illegal in 1947?
If no, why is it illegal now?

>One more time, let's see how wide Perlman's view of the world really is:
>
>Fact: Under the UN Charter there can lawfully be no territorial gains from
>      war, even by a state acting in self-defense.  Accordingly, the UN 
>      regards Jerusalem as occupied.

In which case, the UN could also regard Jerusalem as its property,
since it was aqquired by war after the 1947 partition resolution.  It
does not, according to everything I have ever seen.

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?

>Fact: When Israeli extended Israeli law to (newly expanded) East Jerusalem
>      after the 1967 war, the action was condemned by the UN Security Council
>      (Res. 252 and 267) and the UN General Assembly (Res. 2253).

But the UN never condemned the extension of Jordanian law to
Jerusalem, did it?  We see a bias here. 

>Fact: In 1980 the Security Council issued an unconditional call on Israel to
>      withdraw from the 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).   

Ignoring the historical presence of Jews in Jerusalem, many of whom
were chased out by armed mobs in 1936 & 1939, and the remainder were
chased out *by force* in 1948.  So, in reality, the UNSC was declaring
that the aqqusition of territory by Jews in Jerusalem was illegal.

>      The UNGA has also called for unconditional withdrawal ``from all 
>      Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, 
>      including Jerusalem.'' (See G.A. Res. 37/123(F) of December 1982.)
>      As explicitly stated, both the UNSC and the UNGA consider Jerusalem
>      to be part of occupied Arab territories.

The UNGA has also called Zionism racism.  Its calls are irrelevant.

>Fact: When Israel officially annexed the (now much expanded) East Jerusalem,
>      the UN Security Council unanimously passed a resolution declaring the 
>      Israeli annexation ``null and void'' under international law.  (Ref. 
>      S.C. Res. 478, art. 2, August 1980.) (See also G.A. Res. 35/169, 
>      December 1980.)

But ignored the historical reality of Jews chased out by force.


>Fact: The U.N. Security council passed numerous resolution (see for 
>      example S.C. Res 681 of December 1991) ``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 (167),''
>      and declaring that the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 ``is applicable 
>      to all territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem.''

Again, ignoring the fact that Jews were cahsed out by war in 1948.

>Fact: On January 6, 1992, the UNSC again unanimously passed a resolution 
>      (UNSC Res. 726) in which it strongly condemned Israeli deportations of 
>      Palestinians and reaffirmed ``the applicability of the Geneva 
>      Convention to all Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 
>      1967, including Jerusalem.''

The UN did not, however, condemn the expulsion of Jews from Jerusalem.

>Perlman, you may choose to continue to insist that "E. Jerusalem is 
>not occupied", but the facts and international law tell us otherwise.
>You may elect to ignore reality, but that doesn't make it go away.

No, the facts show us that the UNSC ignored, when convineint,
expulsions of Jews, to allow its historical revisionism to work
smoothly.

The fact is Jews lived in "East" Jerusalem before 1948, and did so
legally.  To claim that 19 years of illegal Jordanian occupation makes
any further residence by Jews illegal is the height of hipocracy.

Adam



Adam Shostack 					adam@das.harvard.edu

What a terrible thing to have lost one's .sig.  Or not to have a .sig
at all.  How true that is.      
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43114 ca.politics:7315