From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Eggert vs. Livni
Reply-To: Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 10:25:47 GMT

In article <BtJsL7.9yu@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca>, idfriedm@hertz.uwaterloo.ca (id
friedman) writes:

|>In article <EGGERTJ.92Aug24114852@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu> eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu
|>writes:
|>>In article <1992Aug24.131643.9498@das.harvard.edu> adam@endor.uucp (Adam
|>Shostack) writes:
|>>>   In article <EGGERTJ.92Aug23002319@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu>
|>eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu writes:
|>>>   >In article <1992Aug21.205444.247@bony1.bony.com> jake@bony1.bony.com
|>(Jake Livni) writes:
|>>>   >>   The UN has not called on Israel to relinquish control of these
|>>>   >>   territories.  It has called on all parties to the dispute to
|>consider
|>>>   >>   transfer of land in exchange for peace.  ...
|>>>
|>>>   >You have obviously not read and understood UN Resolution 242.  Try
|>again.
|>>>
|>>>   I'm confused here.  I know that there are UN resolutions that call on
|>>>   Israel to unilaterally hop off into the sea, but 242 is not one of
|>>>   them.  It clearly calls on all parties to consider trading land for
|>>>   peace.
|>>>
|>>>   How is Jake in the wrong?
|>>
|>>In the slant he provides.  UN Resolution 242 says (and thanks for the
|>>inclusion in your posting:)
|>>
|>>>   Resolution 242 Nov 22, 1967
|>>>
|>>>   The Security Council,
|>>>   ...
|>>>   1.  Affirms the fulfillment of the charter principles requires the
|>>>   establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which
|>>>   should include the application of both of the following principles:
|>>>
|>>>   i.  Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in
|>>>   the recent conflict;
|>>>   ii.  Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect
|>>>   for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and
|>>>   political independence of every state in the area and their right to
|>>>   live in secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of
|>>>   force;
|>>
|>>Thus the UN calls for a land-for-peace deal.  Jake would have you
|>>think that the UN only asks that such a deal be considered, as if
|>>other options were equally acceptable to the UN.  To the contrary, the
|>>UN Security Council required the warring parties to come to peace, and
|>>this peace should be a land-for-peace arrangement.  Until Israel
|>>complies with 1.i, and Israel's enemies comply with 1.ii, they remain
|> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|>
|>  Israel has withdrawn from most of the territory. There is ** evidence **
|>  to indicate that  Israel isn't required to withdraw from ** all ** of the
|>  territories. ( That debate has been milked for all its worth).
|>Nevertheless,
|>  Israel has fulfilled i) better than all of the Arab countries except for
|>Egypt
|> have fulfilled ii). 
|>
|>  Now, since the resolution calls for ** both ** of these conditions, why is
|>  Israel supposed to go all out on condition i), without the Arabs making
|>  a move on condition ii)?
|>
|>  If I have a contract indicating that I'll pay you, say $10 000 in monthly
|>  installements for an encyclopedia with, say, 10  volumes. If I fulfill **
|>most
|>  or all ** of my part ( say paid you $6000) and I only get one volume ( the
|>  ** Epypt ** one) out of a series of 10 or so volumes, then who is in
|> violation? 
|>>in violation with 242.

Jakes ludicrous constructions on 242 are in fact belied by the preamble
"Emphasizing the inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by war". If 242
could be interpreted as Jake attempts, ie that Israel is only obliged to return
part of the territories in return for recognition the preamble would read
differently.

As it is Likud was never prepared to accept resolution 242 so obviously even
they did not consider Jake's ingeneous interpretation as credible. 


--

Phill Hallam-Baker
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.med