From: horen@rs.com (Jonathan B. Horen)
Subject: Re: BILL CLINTON ON ISRAEL AND THE MIDDLE
Reply-To: horen@rs.com
Organization: Renaissance Software, Inc.
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 10:14:09 PDT

In article 38582@imag.imag.fr, oueichek@ngulu (Ibaa Oueichek) writes:
>horen@rs.com (Jonathan B. Horen) writes:
>: In article 26710@ncrcae.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM, nabil@ncrcol.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (Nabil Idriss) writes:
>: >>    o Denied Israel's request for humanitarian assistance in
>: >>      resettling Russian Jews, and
>: >>
>: >     * The United States have always helped Israel to resettle
>: >       Jews in Israel. Recently the Loan guarantees have been
>: >       approved.
>: 
>: Resettle Jews in Israel because of a history of annihilation
>: in every other country in which we settled (and for the last 44 years
>: the Arabs have been dedicated to the "final solution" of annihilating 
>: us there, too). And the Loan Guarantees have been approved because
>: Israel agreed-to and stopped-building new settlements.
>
>  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always be obeyed, or that it will not be rescinded.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repealed.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.

[...]

>: >>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.)

As for "Palestine is Palestine" -- well, then let me say that Palestine=Israel,
and that *your* (and the PLO's) "Palestinians" are no such thing. "Palestinians"
are Israeli Jews. The people about to you (and others) are referring are
"Jordanians" (and/or "Lebanese", "Syrians", "Iragis", etc.).			

And please, neither I, nor you, sound *anything* like Mutlu.

 +------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
 | Jonathan B. Horen      | I have three principles:                   |
 | SysAdmin/TechWriter    |   NO to 2 million Palestinian citizens!    |
 | email: j.horen@rs.com  |   NO to a Palestinian state!               |
 | Tel:   (415) 856-8000  |   NO to a withdrawal to '67!               |
 |                        |            -- Yitzhak Rabin, Israeli PM    |
 +------------------------+--------------------------------------------+