From: perlman@qso.Colorado.EDU (Eric S. Perlman)
Subject: Re: Fair Swap
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 21:00:32 GMT

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

The comparison between Kuwait and E. Jerusalem is inapplicable.  Kuwait
was gained in a war of conquest, E. Jerusalem in a war of defense only.
Further, let's remember the writings of both Lord Ambassador Caradon and
Ambassador Goldberg (GB and US respectively), who have written that
border changes are quite legal under 242, and Goldberg has in fact
written that 242 was never meant to apply to Jerusalem.  What we're
seeing is that Muhanna only admits as facts those interpretations which
happen to agree with his view of the world.  Quite illuminating really.

>Later, in article <1992Sep2.215428.25841@colorado.edu>, a follow up to
>Hallam@zeus02.desy.de followup, Perlman writes:
>
>>In article <1992Sep2.144615.8627@dscomsf.desy.de> Hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>>>...
>>>The axiom on which the New World Order is based is the rule of international 
>>>law as defined by the UN. The UN regards E. Jreusalem as occupied. 
>>
>>The majority of the GA does.  UNGA resolutions do not have the
>>force of international law.  UNSC resolutions do.  So your argument
>>falls.
>
>No it doesn't.  *Sigh*  Having been corrected on this issue many times 
>before, Perlman once again chooses to demonstrate that he is not capable of 
>facing reality (at least on this issue), preferring instead to live in 
>fantasy land.

No, it's just the fact of the matter. I haven't been corrected on this
several times.  I've held my ground rather well, I think; let's look at
the "facts" as presented. It turns out that Muhanna's is a seriously
biased and skewed version.

>What is really funny, however, is that this is the very same
>Eric Perlman who - just a couple of days ago in a response 
>(<1992Aug31.215655.13594@colorado.edu>) to John Elghani - wrote:
>>...
>>Just like Elghani!  As has been mentioned umpteen times on this net, the
>>name "Palestine" for the land was a Roman invention.  Once again, we see
>>what should be very obvious:  Elghani refuses to take seriously anything
>>which attacks his hopelessly narrow view of the world.  Ho hum.
>
>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.

Fact:  The UN Charter does not mention the actions of a state acting in
self defense.  I suggest Waleed read it and then provide me with wording
that specifically applies to self-defense situations.
 
242 contains a sentence that reaffirms the inadmissibility of border
changes by force - but both Caradon and Goldberg have commented that
this refers directly to land gained by conquest not in self-defense.

For the last time, let's repeat the fact that 242 does not demand the
return of all territory.  That is one possible outcome of it.  However,
it is not the only legal outcome of it.  Read Caradon's and Goldberg's
statements on it.  They wrote the resolution, I'll remind you.

>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).
>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).   

Fact:  to call Jerusalem "Arab territory" ignores history. Let us
remember that between 1948 and 1967 it was occupied by Jordan, shall we,
and that no Jew was permitted to approach the holiest sites to Judaism.
Let us also remember that those portions referred to as "Arab territory"
were in fact *majority Jewish* before 1948 and were in fact gained in a
war of conquest by Jordan.  If the UN is such an honest broker, where
was the UN outcry then?  

>      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.

And it's a fact that unconditional withdrawal itself violates UNSC 242
and 338 which call for a return of territory, not necessarily all
territory, as *part of* a negotiated settlement, not as a prerequisite
to a negotiated settlement.  This is a fact I have reiterated over and
over again, and which has yet to be contradicted on this net.

>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 notice that occupation itself is *NOT* illegal under international
law.  This has been pointed out to Muhanna umpteen times and yet he
continues to ignore it.  Also, since that time over a dozen nations have
opened their embassies in Jerusalem, and many more have opened
consulates there (including some in E. Jerusalem).  

>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.''

See above.  You're presenting a seriously skewed point of view that
completely ignores legislative intent, as written by 242's framers.

>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.''

Note that I have never stated that I approve of Israeli deportations of
Palestinians?  This is a technique that Waleed has used before, and it's
despicable.  It's called the strawman.  I don't hold that view.  Yet
Waleed tries to link me in to it.  

>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.

And you may elect to ignore any facts which don't agree with your skewed
view of matters, and that being the case I will point things out.

And I demand that you stop using strawman tactics.  Longtime readers of
tpm will remember that this was shown to be the case at least twice
before for Waleed.  It doesn't wash now, just as it didn't wash then.

-- 
"How sad to see/A model of decorum and tranquillity/become like any other sport
A battleground for rival ideologies to slug it out with glee." -Tim Rice,"Chess"
     Eric S. Perlman 				 <perlman@qso.colorado.edu> 
  Center for Astrophysics and Space Astronomy, University of Colorado, Boulder