From: makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky)
Subject: Re: Israeli Expulsion of 418 Palestinians
Reply-To: makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky)
Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe AZ
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 14:10:15 GMT

In article <EGGERTJ.92Dec20220240@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu> eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu writes:

# In article <1992Dec20.074547.1840@ennews.eas.asu.edu> makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky) writes:

# >   In article <23096@venera.isi.edu> arens@ISI.EDU (Yigal Arens) writes:

# >   # In article <1992Dec18.124600.16290@ennews.eas.asu.edu> makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky) writes:

# >   # > Throughout the entire evolution of the fourth Geneva convention,
# >   # > including its official interpretations, it is clear that the Convention
# >   # > does not prohibit all expulsions, despite the fact that the wording of
# >   # > the convention may lead one to believe that.

# >   # Article 49 of the 1949 (Fourth) Geneva Convention on the Protection
# >   # of War Victims states, among other things:

# >   #   Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of
# >   #   protected persons [i.e., inhabitants of occupied territory -- YA]
# >   #   from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or
# >   #   to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited
# >   #   regardless of motive.

# >   # Yes, I can see why the innocent reader might be misled into believing
# >   # that the convention prohibits expulsions.  Luckily we have Mr. Makowsky
# >   # to set us straight.

# >	   Unfortunately, Yigal does not seem to be able tor read.  If he
# >   did, he would have seen the justification (which I originally saw in a
# >   column by William Safire) for what I wrote.  And I never claimed the
# >   convention does not prohibit any exoulsions.
 
# It does not seem to bother Makowsky that the US officially disagrees
# with his interpretation of the Geneva Convention.  Or that the EC and
# its member states do as well.  Or that the UN does as well.  As long
# as one journalist (William Safire) says that forced deportation is
# ok, then Makowsky is secure in his belief.

	Oh, but it does bother me.  It bothers me because they are wrong.
The US, EC, and UN are making political, not legal statements.  In
fact, a couple of years ago when Bush and Baker wanted s State
department lawyer to say it was illegal, they had to get a third rate
flunky to do the work.  None of their top lawyers would because they
knew it was not illegal.

	And William Safire does not just say it was wrong, he gives his
sources (the official interpretations for one).  Maybe you cannot read
also since I had written this.

# What's wrong with you?  Can't you tell right from wrong?  Rounding up
# and deporting innocents is wrong.  Even if it seems expedient, it is
# still wrong.

	These people are sworn to destroy Israel.  And if deporting them
makes Israel more secure (I am not claiming here that id does or does
not), and protestc all of its citizens (Jews and Arabs) than the only
wrong thing is that not enough were deported.

	Any government's primary mission is to its citizens first, and
than any international obligations (including international law)
second.
--
	There are three types of people in the world.  Those that are good
at math and those that are not.

makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast