From: adam@endor.uucp (Adam Shostack)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast,misc.headlines
Subject: Re: Fair Swap
Date: 7 Sep 92 18:51:44 GMT
Article-I.D.: das.1992Sep7.185144.5501
Organization: Aiken Computation Lab, Harvard University

In article <1992Sep4.221834.14661@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> wmuhanna@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Waleed A Muhanna) writes:
>
>In article <1992Sep3.201539.9597@das.harvard.edu> adam@sparkle.uucp (Adam Shostack) writes:
>>Are all of Israels teritorial gains in 1948 illegal?  Are you going to
>>call for Israeli withdrawl as soon as you have your new state?

>I'm glad you asked this question.

I'm glad you answered it.

>The fact is that UNSC Res. 242 sought to deal with the 1967 hostilities and 
>does not address the question of Israel's borders.  Thus while it might appear
>to some that in passing 242 the UNSC has tacitly resigned itself to Israel 
>keeping the fruits of the 1948 zionist conquest of Palestine, technically 
>and under strict legal terms, Israel's 1948 territorial gains remain unlawful 
>until a final settlement with the Palestinians is reached.

Nope, 242 specifically says:

<242> 1.  Affirms the fulfillment of the charter principles requires the
<242> establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which
<242> should include the application of both of the following principles:
 
<242> i.  Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in
<242> the recent conflict;
          ------

<242> ii.  Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect
<242> for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and
<242> political independence of every state in the area and their right to
<242> live in secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of
              ------
<242> force;
 
Clearly, the UN refers to returning (some of) the territory occupied
in the recent conflict.  Authors of the reolution have spoken on how
Jerusalem was explicitly left out, as was the word "the" which some
people wish was in 1.i.

242 does not make the Israeli gains of 1948 illegal.  In contrast, it
tacitly acknowledges them, and further affirms the right of each
state, including Israel, to secure borders, which the 1948 borders
were not.

>I agree with Raif Hijab who (a couple of years ago and in this
>newsgroup) eloquently wrote the following paragraphs on this issue:
>
>  The important point to consider is that Israel itself has no valid
>  claim to any territory except by the fact of belligerent occupation.
>  Until the Palestine issue is settled, any claim that Israel makes
>  can be just as legally made by the Palestinians. For the time being,
>  this might suit Israel just fine, since it holds all the aces.

Nonsense.  The Palestinians *rejected* 193 and their right to a state
inside the "Green Line", the 1949 ceasefire lines.  They did this by
declaring war on Israel, and losing.  War is not a zero sum game.  The
side that starts, and loses a war generally loses territory as well.
Germany is a good example of this.  Germany lost WWII, and can not go
back to the "meaningless pieces of paper" which defined its pre-war
boundaries, since it rejected those same papers in declaring war.

The Arabs have the same problem.  They rejected the solution, proposed
by the UN, and started a war.  After losing said war, they claimed
that the solution previously rejected is now valid?  Nonsense!  The
solution became invalid when the war started, and was irrelevant by
the time it ended.

>  What I am referring to here is that Palestine became a ward of
>  the community of nations in 1919, first under the League of Nations,
>  and later under the United Nations. The U.N., as inheritor of the
>  legacy of the League, is still under the obligation of fulfilling
>  the terms of the mandates, and the international decisions which
>  stemmed from them. The most important of these decisions was the
>  U.N. Partition Resolution of 1947, which called for the establishment
>  of two states in Palestine, one Jewish and one Arab.

Yes, it was important, and if it had been accepted, it might form the
basis for a resolution of conflict.  But once it was rejected, it
became irrelevant.  Claiming that a resolution is only valid after you
lose a war fought to nullify its effect is the hieght of hypocrisy.

>  It is that resolution which still forms the foundation of inter-
>  national legitimacy. To the extent that Israel is in violation of 
>  that resolution, Israel's legitimacy is itself in question.

Still?!?  It never did, according to the armies that poured into
Israel.  Israel is not in violatrion of the resolution, the Arabs are.
Untill the Arabs recognise 242 as the basisof peace, and stop trying
to fall back to 193, peace is not possible.

>  What most Israelis do not realize is that the Palestinians are
>  offering them a golden opportunity for a deal which would be
>  highly favorable to Israel. [The Palestinians are willing to
>  settle for a mere 1/4th of their ancestral homeland. -WM]
>  Should they [the Israelis -WM] choose not to make such
>  a deal, the Israelis would eventually have to make peace on terms
>  which give far greater weight to the U.N. Partition Resolution.

Nonsense.  Just as Germany rejected any legal right to bits of
Yugoslavia it gained by Britians appeasement when it violated that
treaty, Arabs lost the right to call on 193 when they rejected it,
violated it, and invaded Israel.

A beautiful argument, very nicely constructed, but that doesn't change
the fact that the resolutionwas rejected and nullified in 1948.

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.