From: perlman@qso.Colorado.EDU (Eric S. Perlman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: BILL CLINTON ON ISRAEL AND THE MIDDLE
Date: 21 Aug 92 16:45:07 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

In article <38631@imag.imag.fr> oueichek@ngulu (Ibaa Oueichek) writes:
>horen@rs.com (Jonathan B. Horen) writes:
>: In article 38582@imag.imag.fr, oueichek@ngulu (Ibaa Oueichek) writes:
>: >horen@rs.com (Jonathan B. Horen) writes:
>: >
>: >  Excuse-me (this is not provokation, but a serious question) :
>: >  How durable is this decision ?. i.e, did Israel issue a law against building
>: >  new settlements ? (and i think it didn't concerne ALL sttlements, but i'll
>: >  be more than happy if i'm wrong). Or is it a "verbal" decision which can be
>: >  reversed at any moment ?.
>: 
>: There is an old saying: "Laws are made to be broken." In other words, just
>: because a law exists, doesn't mean that it will be enforced, or that it will
>: always be obeyed, or that it will not be rescinded. During the Prohibition-
>: era in the US, alcohol (which was previously legal) was made illegal, the
>: laws that made it illegal were openly disregarded, and eventually they were
>: repealed.
>: 
>: So. Has Israel issued a law against building new settlements? No. Does it
>: matter? Perhaps to some people, but laws (regardless of whether they are
>: Divine, Divinely-inspired, or `just' man-made) are only words on stone/
>: parchment/paper -- what counts is how/whether people follow them, or not.
>
>I think it matters. The reason behind my question is that i've read plenty of
>articles in serious newspapers (Le monde, Figaro, Hirald Tribune,..etc). And
>i don't feel comfortable with the whole stuff. I mean, it's really FUZZY, there
>are "strategic" settlements, and "economic" settlements. Some of them are
>"frozen", but can be resumed at any moment. A law clarifies things, it defines
>boundaries clearly. Maybe i'm too suspecious here, but is it too much to ask
>"the only democratic state in the mideast" to respect democratic institutions?.
>I thought deomcracy worked with Laws, not "verbal instructions". It's true that
>both of them a reversible, but it's more difficult in the first case, and a law
>voted by the Parliment reflects the will of people. 
  
Are you calling for a law restricting the movement of people?  Laws will
be passed respecting the funding of these settlements.  If you don't
have the money you won't build it.  That's pretty simple, and
democratic, isn't it?

>: 
>: [...]
>: 
>: >: >>Palestinian State.  The Palestinians should have the right -- as specified in
>: >: >>the Camp David Accord -- to participate in the determination of their future.
>: >: >>But they do no have the right to determine Israel's future.  For that reason,
>: >: >>Bill Clinton opposes the creation of an independent Palestinian state.
>: >: >
>: >: >Did he really say that? I have never heard it. Why the Palestinians have no right
>: >: >and Israel have right?
>: >: 
>: >: Because Jordan=Palestine.
>: >
>: >  Palestinians OWN the land where they live, they OWNED most of YOUR ISRAEL
>: >  before 48. Palestine is Palestine, and Palestinians are going to have their
>: >  right, you like it or not. You may shout  Jordan=Palestine all the day (the
>: >  same as Mutlu shouting "Armenians killed 2.5 Turks in cold blood") it doesn't
>: >  make it true.
>: 
>: If someone buys land from someone who stole the land, the "buying" is invalid
>: (that is why, in most countries, before paying money for land, a house/building,
>: or an apartment, the buyer has someone conduct a "title search", to prove that
>: the seller has the right to sell the land/house/etc.)
>
>Who's this "someone who stole the land" ?. Do you mean that Palestinians bought
>the land from a thief ?. I doubt that the British gov will agree. After all,
>plenty of Palestinians expelled in 48 have official ownership titles signed from
>the British administration.
>Ah, you mean Romans stole the land from Jews, then came Arabs, then came
>Ottomans, then Jews came back to their land. Do you really believe that ?.

It's history.  That's the way it's gone, by and large.  During the
interim, many people came to live in the land, including most of today's
Palestinians (and that interim, let's remember, was nearly 2 millenia
long).

>After all, there were people there before Jews, certain Philistins, no ?.
>IN OUR TIME, Propriety is based on sale and purchase, not on G-D's convenant
>(and i'll not say a single word about territories that Jews purchased and paied).
>Israel's expropriation of Palestinians' land is just an act of theft, nothing
>more, nothing less.

Of course, by not saying a word about the fact of the matter you are
ignoring a prime reason you're wrong.  Israel did NOT expropriate
Palestine.  Jews bought land in Mandatory Palestine, where Israel, our
homeland, rests.  Did other people live there when we returned?  Yes.
Do the facts of history mean that they didn't have a right to live
there?  No.  They have a right to live there.  But their leaders at the
time refused to see that this logic applies in reverse to Jews, and
attempted to destroy the nascent Jewish state and reverse the previous
Jewish immigration.  Fortunately, they failed.  But in doing so,
unfortunately, they produced the Palestinian refugees.

-- 
"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
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast,misc.headlines,talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy,alt.censorship