🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <JIME.92Apr14230116@bullwinkle.atc.ll.mit.edu> jime@bullwinkle.atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert x6127 g41) writes:
>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?

On this particular count, it does, but I think where we differ is a
matter of interpretation.  To many, the statement that the occupation
goes against against UN resolutions implies that it is illegal, which it
is not.  (Please note that I am NOT accusing you of holding that
position, nor otherwise attempting to intimate your agreement with it)

>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.

Correct.  Of course the territories referred to under 242 and 338 also
included the Sinai, and some camps believe that Israel has already given
up enough land.  I am personally in favor of a land-for-peace deal
involving most of the WB and Gaza, but not including Jerusalem.


>international law, well, international law doesn't have much force
>anyway, so I don't know what this argument buys you.

Well, there is the small matter of Kuwait (sometimes, it buys you a
lot..).

>The way the occupation is being run (deportation of elements of the
>local populace, construction of permanent settlements, ...) also goes
>against the Geneva Convention.

That's debatable.  Certainly I would like to see the job done better.

-- 
"How sad to see/A model of decorum and tranquillity/become like any other sport
A battleground for rival ideologies to slug it out with glee." -Tim Rice,"Chess"
     Eric S. Perlman  <perlman@qso.colorado.edu> or <eric@lyra.Colorado.EDU> 
  Center for Astrophysics and Space Astronomy, University of Colorado, Boulder