From: eshneken@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Edward A Shnekendorf)
Subject: Re: Fair Swap
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 20:25:32 GMT

adam@endor.uucp (Adam Shostack) writes:

>In article <EGGERTJ.92Sep4233440@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu> eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Sep4.181853.28566@das.harvard.edu> adam@sparkle.uucp (Adam Shostack) writes:

>>>   If, as you claim "International law does not mandate against Jews in
>>>   Jerusalem," then Jews can continue moving into houses in Jerusalem in
>>>   the meantime, and there will be no hue and cry, as long as the Army is
>>>   not building bases, but individuals are buying houses.

>>The Geneva Convention mandates against the construction of permanent
>>buildings in occupied territories.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I
>>don't think that these are restricted to army bases.

>The problem is that calling Jerusalem occupied is a misnomer.  The UN
>declared that it owned Jerusalem, the Jordanians occupied it, violated
>the Geneva conventions by expelling legal residents and also violated the
>ceasefire agreement.

>The fact is that Israel has provided, by and large, fair government,
>free access to religious sites, and democracy to all the residents of
>Jerusalem.  Thats more than any other group can claim.

>>As far as individuals buying houses, then of course it depends on
>>whether the houses existed before the occupation started.
>>
>>>   Fact is, when individuals buy houses, a hue and cry goes up that their
>>>   presence is illegal.
>>
>>I wonder if the houses were just lying around, or were they built
>>under the sponsorship of the Israeli government, or were they
>>expropriated from the local indigenous population?

>Or, perhaps, bought from the local population who kicked out the
>Jewish residents in 1936 and 1939?

>The idea that the indeiginous polulation is all Arab is a load of
>bull.  There are many Jewish families who lost their property to
>riots who are now buying it back.   The people who have "lived there
>for generations" took the property by force in many cases.

>>>   Its not "foriegn territory" it is, at worse, disputed territory.  If
>>>   its foriegn to anyone, it is not Jews. Jews have had a continuous
>>>   presence in Jerusalem for 1800 years, living in what is now "east
>>>   Jerusalem."  If anyone is, or was occupying it, it is the Jordanians,
>>>   who kicked people out in 1948, or the Arabs who rioted in 1936 and
>>>   1939, and chased people out of their homes.
>>
>>The Israelis kicked people out of their homes in East Jerusalem in
>>1967 too.  Thus according to your own logic, East Jerusalem is under
>>occupation by the Israelis after all.

>And gave them other home, in Jerusalem.  They kicked people out of the
>slums that the Jordanians had built in the early 50's, and compensated
>them for their houses, which were built on occupied land.

Jews have always, for the last 2000 years, been the majority in Jerusalem.
To claim Arab sovreingty over Jerusalem is  complete lunacy.  Those who
call for an end to Jewish settlement in Jerusalem and elsewhere in Judea and 
Samaria are simply racists - they are attempting to deny people housing based
on their national identity and religion.  Israel does not prevent Arabs from
building in the territories...Who is the racist now?

Edward A. Shnekendorf            
eshneken@uiuc.edu
A

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.animals