🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Apr15.145219.18739@ennews.eas.asu.edu> makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky) writes:
>   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:
>
>   # 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?
>
>	   It is not that your facts are wrong, but because the UN resolutions
>   are meaningless, your facts are irelevent.

You are of course not the person to whom the question was directed,
but anyway...
Why exactly do you say that the UN resolutions are meaningless?

>   # 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.
>
>	   The author of 242 has repeatedly stated that Israel is not now in
>   violation of it, and that by giving up the Sinai Israel may have
>   fufilled all of its obligations under it.

That is of course for the UNSC to decide, not a single individual.
It is curious logic, however, that you simultaneously consider the UN
resolutions meaningless, and also hold up supposed compliance with
one of them as a point in Israel's favor.

>   # 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.
>
>	   Since UN resolutions for the most part are political and
>   ethnocentric (just look at all the block voting), using them does not
>   buy you any kind of a morality high ground either.

Political indeed, that is what the UN is in the business for.
Ethnocentric, well, you claim that merely because Israel is on the
wrong side in this issue.  Do you consider the UN resolutions
establishing Israel as ethnocentric too?

>   # The way the occupation is being run (deportation of elements of the
>   # local populace, construction of permanent settlements, ...) also goes
>   # against the Geneva Convention.
>
>	   No they do not.

Please explain.  A simple denial doesn't hold much weight.
--
=Jim  jime%atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert)