From: bx573@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Alan H. Stein)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Fair Swap
Date: 10 Sep 1992 21:14:24 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: bx573@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Alan H. Stein)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, wmuhanna@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Waleed A Muhanna) says:

>
>You keep ignoring the fact that the references to "withdrawal" and to
>"secure..." ARE SUBJECT to the general principle of the
>"inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war," which is
>stated in the preamble of UNSC Res. 242 and which governs all that
>follows.

And you ignore the fact that Egypt and Jordan originally seized that
territory by force.  The obvious reconciliation, in more ways than one, is
a territorial compromise.  That means, by the way, that Israel keeps some
of the territory, and the Arabs keep some of the territory.

Since the Arabs already control about 3/4 of Palestine, it
should be obvious who, in a fair settlement, would get most of the
remaining quarter.

>
>If withdrawal was not intended to apply to Jerusalem, then perhaps you
>can explain why in 1980 the Security Council issued an unconditional 
>call on Israel to withdraw from the Golan, Gaza Strip and West Bank, 
>including Jerusalem.  ``Reaffirming that acquisition of territory by force is
>inadmissible,'' it referred to ``the overriding necessity to end the
>prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967,
>including Jerusalem.'' (Ref. S.C. Res.  476, June 1980).  If 242 was
>not intended to apply to Jerusalem, then why did the UNSC
>declare Israel's annexation of Jerusalem, ``null and void''?

The rather inappropriate use of the term "Arab territories," despite the
fact that those territories were never Arab except for the period between
1948 and 1967 when they were illegally occupied by Egypt and Jordan,
illuminates why little that the Security Council declares should be taken
seriously.

>
>In addition to what I said above, let's recall the undeniable fact that
>the French (and Russian) text of 242, which are equally authentic as 
>UN records, do not omit the article "the."   

Not quite.  The debate was carried in English;  the definitive version, no
pun intended, was in English.

>
>But even if the article "the" was missing in all texts, it would simply
>mean that the 242 was drafted so as not to exclude *minor*, mutually
>agreeable, adjustments, PROVIDED that such modifications did not
>materially offend the general principle (stated in the res. preamble)
>of the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war."


A rather ingenuous interpretation.
>
>It is well known that almost all the UNSC members wanted a total 
>withdrawal.   Contrary to what Goldberg allegedly have said (I am still
>waiting for someone to post the actual text), even the US seemingly
>wanted that.  Here is what William Rogers, the US Secritary of State at the 
>time, said:
>	``We believe that while recognized political boundries must be
>	  established, and agreed upon by the parties, any changes
>	  in the existing lines should not reflect the weight of the
>	  conquest and should be confined to insubstantial alterations
>	  required for mutual security.   We do not support expansionism.
>	  We believe troops must be withdrawn as the Resolution provides."   
>	   (NYT,11/12/69)

Of course, if William Rogers really had his way, the Arabs would have won
in 1967 and his job would have been much less complicated because there
wouldn't have been that irritating democracy in the Middle East, Israel, to
deal with.>

>
>As Hijab said, what most Israelis do not realize is that today
>the Palestinians are offering them a golden opportunity for a deal 
>which would be highly favorable to Israel.  The Palestinians 
>have declared their willingness to accept a state in only 1/4 of their
>ancestral homeland.  Should Israel choose not to make such
>a deal, it would eventually have to make peace on terms which 
>give far greater weight to the U.N. Partition Resolution.

How can a people whose existence as such dates back to sometime within my
own lifetime (and I'm only 45) have an "ancestral homeland?"

Further, even if we ignore that minor <gr> point, aren't your forgetting
that the Palestinian Arabs already have their own nation in eastern
Palestine, comprising over 3/4 of Palestine?
-- 
bx573@cleveland.freenet.edu----Alan H. Stein----stein@uconnvm.uconn.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast