From: wmuhanna@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Waleed A Muhanna)
Subject: Re: Fair Swap
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 22:18:34 GMT


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:
>>
>>....
>>
>>Fact: Under the UN Charter there can lawfully be no territorial gains from
>>      war, even by a state acting in self-defense.  Accordingly, the UN 
>>      regards Jerusalem as occupied.
>
>In which case, the UN could also regard Jerusalem as its property,
>since it was aqquired by war after the 1947 partition resolution.  It
>does not, according to everything I have ever seen.
>
>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.

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.

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.
  However, should the tables be turned, Israel would have absolutely
  no legal defense for any line it cares to draw on the ground as
  defining its legitimate territory. Naturally, this is a situation
  which most states have recognized for centuries as untenable. That
  is the reason why states sign treaties recognizing each other's
  borders.
  
  What is the way out? Legally, there is a basis for determining
  legitimacy which overrides any argument that Israel might put
  forward. (This is apart from the fundamental right to self-determination,
  which I am not discussing here, since the international community
  has yet to set up an apparatus for the protection of this right.)
  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.
  
  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.
  One interpretation of this resolution is to assert that Israel
  legally controls the areas allocated to it by the U.N. Partition
  Resolution, and is in belligerent occupation of the rest of Palestine.
  This means not only the West Bank and Gaza, but areas such as
  Lydda, Nazareth, Ashkelon, Beersheba and Acca. I am sure that
  Israel would not be too comfortable with such a definition, but it
  is really the only starting point for establishing legitimacy.

  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.

This analysis precludes, of course, the unlikely but not impossible
event of the Israelis engaging in widescale massacre of the 
Palestinians, or conducting a widescale "ethnic cleansing" operation
(a la 1948), in the hope of removing any prospect of a future
Palestinan (but not Arab/Muslim/World) challenge to their control.  
Such act on the part of Israel is clearly both genocidal and suicidal,
in my opinion.

Waleed Muhanna
-=-
"You can build a throne out of bayonets, but you can't sit on it long"
			  			- B.Yeltsen
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:45085 ca.politics:7703 ba.politics:5250 soc.motss:38935 ba.motss:1604