🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Apr14.232215.21465@colorado.edu> perlman@qso.Colorado.EDU (perlman eric) writes:
>   In article <JIME.92Apr14165943@bullwinkle.atc.ll.mit.edu> jime@bullwinkle.atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert x6127 g41) writes:
>   >Both, actually.  The mere occupation goes against UN resolutions.  And
>   >there are considerable injustices going on as a result of the occupation.
>
>   Jim, this has been discussed before in tpm.  The occupation does not go
>   against international law.  There have been a number of GA resolutions
>   railroaded through which demanded a unilateral end to the occupation,
>   but UNGA resolutions don't have the force of international law, and also
>   those resolutions contradict the wording of UNSC 242 and 338, which talk
>   about territorial compromise as a part of a peace plan, not unilateral
>   withdrawal.
>
>   Certainly I don't approve of everything going on in the territories, but
>   let's get our facts straight.

The occupation, as I clearly wrote above, goes against UN resolutions.
Your posting agrees with me on this count.  Why do you admonish me to
get my facts straight, if we agree?

242 and 338, if I remember correctly, do ask for territorial
compromise, which is a code phrase for trading land for peace.
As Israel occupies the land, it is clear that Israel would have to
withdraw from at least part of the occupied territories under these
resolutions.

As for whether the UNSC or UNGA resolutions hold the force of
international law, well, international law doesn't have much force
anyway, so I don't know what this argument buys you.

The way the occupation is being run (deportation of elements of the
local populace, construction of permanent settlements, ...) also goes
against the Geneva Convention.
--
=Jim  jime%atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert)