From: idfriedm@hertz.uwaterloo.ca (id friedman)
Subject: Re: Eggert vs. Livni
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 03:08:34 GMT

In article <EGGERTJ.92Aug25164553@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu> eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu writes:
>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:
>>   >>   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     Israel has withdrawn from most of the territory.
>
>"Most" here is presumably defined by geographical area.  One could
>easily well choose another measure, such as population or number of
>holy religious sites, which would indicate that Israel has not
>withdrawn from most of the territory.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). 

    The resolution *** specifically does not mention *** all of the
    territories. I have a source which quotes the author of the resolution
    as saying that they deliberately didn't use ** all ** since the 1967
    territories were unstable.

    I agree with you that we could use other measures for ** most **. However,
    geography and land are most highly important in such a volatile region.
 


>
>Unfortunately, I didn't see that debate.  Perhaps one should ask the
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

  It was on t.p.m.

  I can't personnally reach the U.N security council. We go by the
  resolution which says territories, not ** all ** of the territories. 

>UN Security Council whether Israel is indeed required under 242 to
>withdraw from all of the Occupied Territories, rather than debating
>based on uncited "evidence".
>
>>     Nevertheless,
>>     Israel has fulfilled i) better than all of the Arab countries except for Egypt
>>    have fulfilled ii). 
>
>This is not at all clear.  First, it is very difficult to say that

  Out of all of the Arab countries ( over 20, I believe), 8 or 9 of
  whom have sent troops to 1973 war, only one has made peace.       

  When Arab countriessay that they  would rather change sides in a war
  than fight with Israel... 





>compliance in i) is better than compliance in ii), because different
>measures have to be applied.  You are apparently comparing the
>fraction of occupied land mass returned in i) to the fraction of
>nations at peace in ii).  This sounds like apples and oranges to me.
                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 The point is this: I have a contract with you. I fulfill more of my 
 bargain than you do of yours. Then why is there so much pressure on
 me to complete my share of the bargain, and hardly any on you?

>
>The simple fact of the matter is that Israel and Egypt have cut a deal
>to fulfill 242 partially, and that Israel and the rest of its enemies
>have pretty much chosen to ignore the rest of 242.

 So you admit that Israel has at least partially filled 242, whereas the
 Arab countries, except for Egypt, haven't. Thank you.


>
>>     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)?
>
>Simple.  Israel isn't supposed to.  Israel didn't go partway on
>condition i) without the Arabs (i.e. Egypt) going partway on ii).
>
>Israel also shouldn't build obstacles (i.e. settlements in occupied
>territories) that both violate international law and obstruct the
>implementation of UN resolution 242.
>--
>=Jim  eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert)

Ishay 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc