From: adam@sparkle.uucp (Adam Shostack)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast,misc.headlines
Subject: Re: Fair Swap
Date: 4 Sep 92 18:18:53 GMT
Article-I.D.: das.1992Sep4.181853.28566
Organization: Aiken Computation Lab, Harvard University

In article <EGGERTJ.92Sep4121103@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu> eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu writes:
>In article <1992Sep3.201539.9597@das.harvard.edu> adam@sparkle.uucp (Adam Shostack) writes:
>>   In article <1992Sep3.192057.29754@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> wmuhanna@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Waleed A Muhanna) writes:
>>   >  Iraq too claimed that 
>>   >"Kuwait was *not* occupied territory," but the world didn't seem to 
>>   >agree with such assertion either.
>>
>>   Iraq has no historical presense in Kuwait.  Jews, and Israelis have
>>   historical presense in Jerusalem.  Was thier presense illegal in 1947?
>>   If no, why is it illegal now?

>This is a simple nonsequitur.  There was no Israeli presence in
>Jerusalem in 1947, as there was no Israel.  International law does not
>mandate against Jews in Jerusalem, but rather against the Israeli
>occupation of East Jerusalem.

But anytime a Jew tries to move into a house in East Jerusalem, he is
branded a settler.  The settlers are called "illegal."  Therefore,
Jews can not move into East Jerusalem without certain people claiming
that its an invaison.

Tell me how a Jew can buy property in East Jerusalem and live there.
Tell me why Jews buying back homes they were driven from in the 1930s
is caled "occupation?"  If Israel pulls out, there will be no
legitamate governing body to control Jerusalem.  Therefore, Israel has
a right to rule Jerusalem, until such time as (Hell freezes over and)
a negotiated settlement is achived.

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.

Fact is, when individuals buy houses, a hue and cry goes up that their
presence is illegal.

>You shouldn't confuse the occupation of houses by residents with the
>occupation of foreigh territory by nations.  (Jake Livni was confused
>by this a while back, too, so you aren't alone.)

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 rest of Adam's posting was deleted, as it simply repeats the same
>simple logical error many times.]

Its not a logical error here Jim, although admitedly I dids not
express myself well.  Its a logical error to say that Jews can live in
East Jerusalem, but the Israeli government has no right to be there.

Adam



Adam Shostack 					adam@das.harvard.edu

What a terrible thing to have lost one's .sig.  Or not to have a .sig
at all.  How true that is.      
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43608 talk.politics.mideast:19569 misc.headlines:6176