Posted on 03/22/2002 6:09:26 AM PST by vrwc54
It's important to point out that this is most likey not true of all Palestinians. There are lots of people in the middle, who, unfortunately, must die for there to be a resolution to the conflict.
Few seem to care anymore that the 1967 war was a war of self-defense for Israel or that United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 referred to withdrawal from "territories" rather than from "the territories" — a crucial distinction that shows that the resolution does not necessarily require withdrawal from all of the land occupied in 1967. In this time of crisis and forgetfulness, using the term "illegal" is destructive and dangerous. For the uninformed, the discussion will start with the secretary general's labeling of the occupation as a violation of law.
Those who pay attention to the details of history know better. Resolution 242, passed right after the 1967 war, envisions a just resolution of the conflict and calls for withdrawal and mutual recognition, but it says nothing about legality. Resolution 338, passed after the 1973 Yom Kippur war, imposes an obligation on Israel and the Arabs to negotiate peace. Because it insisted that the Palestinians negotiate an end to the Israeli presence, the Security Council could not have thought the occupation itself violated international law.
Later Security Council resolutions — numbered 446, 452 and 465 — do indeed condemn Israel's policy of building settlements in the occupied territories and declare that these settlements have "no legal validity." Yet these rebukes against Israeli policy were about the settlements — not about the legality of the occupation. And even then, the Security Council stopped short of actually saying that all settlements are illegal. Some of the settlements might be acceptable under the language of Resolution 242, which recognizes that Israel has the right to live within "secure and recognized boundaries." However, there is room for debate about whether Israel's support for the settlements violates the prohibition in the Fourth Geneva Convention that states that "the occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."
Even supposing that the settlements are found to be contrary to international law, it does not follow that the occupation as a whole is illegal. Israel has dismantled settlements before — in the agreement with Egypt on the return of the Sinai — and it could do so again. Indeed, the person in charge of the uprooting of the Sinai settlement of Yamit was none other than Ariel Sharon, who was then Israel's defense minister. It is unfortunate that the dubious policy of building settlements and the military actions of the Israeli Army are getting confused, in the public's mind, with the legality of Israel's holding unannexed lands until a peace agreement is signed.
It is not illegal for victorious powers to occupy hostile territory seized in the course of war until they are able to negotiate a successful peace treaty with their former enemies. The Palestinians have failed to recognize this fact. As former President Bill Clinton stressed at a recent conference in New York, the Camp David proposal was the most sweeping peace effort ever made, and the Palestinians said no....
There's more, if you want to read it, go to NY Times page.
Perhaps an even more illuminating question is Why should Arabs live among Arabs ?
Just to keep the record straight - the Talmud is not "holy" but a compedium of legal/biblical interpretation mixed in with a bit of folklore etc. It's as holy as say the Catholic Encyclopaedia.
As an apikoros I should know - wink, wink.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.