From: makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky)
Subject: Re: Israeli Expulsion of 418 Palestinians
Reply-To: makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky)
Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe AZ
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 00:24:43 GMT

In article <EGGERTJ.92Dec18160400@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu> eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu writes:

# In article <1992Dec18.124600.16290@ennews.eas.asu.edu> makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky) writes:

# >	   First of all, the territories are not occupied.  They were
# >   liberated by Israel in 1967.
 
# So we already know that we are listening to someone who is more
# pro-Israeli than the Israeli government.  "Liberated"?  Hah hah.
 
	They were liberated.  Jews used to live there (in fact it used to
be part of a Jewish nation) before they were all killed or expelled.
There are homes still occupied by Arabs that belong to Jews.  Many of
these homes have mezuza (a mezuza is a Jewish ritual object) holes in
them.

	Your humour stinks.

# >	   However, even if they are "occupied", the above is nonsense.
# >   Throughout the entire evolution of the fourth Geneva convention,
# >   including its official interpretations, it is clear that the Convention
# >   does not prohibit all expulsions, despite the fact that the wording of
# >   the convention may lead one to believe that.  As William Safire has
# >   pointed out, the  convention only applies to Nazi style
# >   massdeportations of innocent civillians.
 
# What do you think happened?  Were the deportees convicted of any
# crime?  No.  Thus under the presumption of innocence until proven
# guilt, the Israelis just committed a mass deportation of innocent
# civilians.

	They commited a deportation of HAMAS members.  They openly admit
that.  They are actually deserving of death.  This is just another
case of the weak and wimpy way Israel treats terrorists.  Because they
did not execute them, some will commit acts of terrorism resulting in
loss of life.

# >	   Now, even if this was a violation of the Convention, Israel (like
# >   any other state) has to worry about the security of its own people
# >   before even considering whether or not their actions meet any kind of
# >   international law.  That is the obligation of any government.
 
# I wonder how many atrocities have been committed in the name of
# "security"?  Certainly the Holocaust numbers among them.  The
# invasion of Poland is another.

	You are being ridiculous here.  By following your theory to its
logical conclusion, governments should do nothing in the name of
security.  Well, that will have all of the effect (actually quite
less) of a morality Maginot line.

# The problem here is that it is clear that Israel doesn't know what is
# going on.  Mass deportations is a response out of proportion to the
# crime.  Guilt by association is assumed.  So the ideas is if you round
# up enough of the suspicious characters and send them all packing, no
# more crimes will be committed?  Whoever has that idea is the one that
# should be committed.

	Don't be an idiot.  No one is claiming that all of them
participated in the murder.  They do, however, belong and acknowledge
support for the organization that is proud to have the murderers as
members.
--
	There are three types of people in the world.  Those that are good
at math and those that are not.

makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu
Xref: sparky talk.politics.mideast:24193 talk.politics.soviet:10017 soc.culture.greek:11905 soc.culture.europe:10835 soc.history:10403 soc.culture.soviet:11602 news.admin.policy:918