In article <1993Apr18.212610.5933@das.harvard.edu>, adam@endor.uucp (Adam Shostack) writes:  |>In article <18APR93.15729846.0076@VM1.MCGILL.CA> B8HA000 <B8HA@MUSICB.MCGILL.CA> writes: |> |>>1) Is Israel's occupation of Southern Lebanon temporary? |> |>	Israel has repeatedly stated that it will leave Lebanon when |>the Lebanese government can provide guarantees that Israel will not be |>attacked from Lebanese soil, and when the Syrians leave.  Not acceptable. Syria and Lebanon have a right to determine if they wish to return to the situation prior to the French invasion where they were both part of the same "mandate territory" - read colony.  Israel has no right to determine what happens in Lebanon. Invading another country because you consider them a threat is precisely the way that almost all wars of aggression have started.   |>>2) Is Israel's occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, and Golan |>>temporary? |> |>	The three are very different issues.  Israel has stated |>repeatedly that it will not give up the whole Golan, but may be |>willing to give part of it to Syria as part of a peace agreement.  Again territorial expansion by force.   |>	Israel has already annexed areas taken over in the 1967 war. |>These areas are not occupied, but disputed, since there is no |>legitamate governing body.  Citizenship was given to those residents |>in annexed areas who wanted citizenship.  The UN defines them as occupied. They are recognised as such by every nation on earth (excluding one small caribean island).   |>	Israel should keep control of parts of the West Bank, IMHO. |>The parts that should be kept are the westernmost mountain ridge, |>which contain few arab towns, and many suburbs, as well as overlooking |>the city of Tel Aviv.  The Eastern mountain ridge should be |>abandonded.  This is where most of the arabs live and it is less |>militarily relevant.  Israel should also maintain a presence in the |>Jordan valley.  So the Adam thinks that peace is possible with continued occupation and  a continued military presence? That is a completely unsustainable situation because the USA is bankrupt and simply cannot afford to finance the Israeli ecconomy any more. There is no money for such an occupation.   |>>If so (for those of you who support it), why were so |>>many settlers moved into the territories?  If it is not temporary, |>>let's hear it. |> |>	There are a number of reasons for people to move (they were |>not moved, but chose to move) into disputed areas.  Note that since |>these moves were made by free willed human beings, not "settlers," I |>will address two aspects of your question, why the government would |>allow &/or encourage them to move, and second why they did move.  They were moved in as part of a deliberate policy to prevent the return of the occupied territories. Machiavelli described the reasoning in the Prince. The clear intention was to create a constituency which the Likud beleived could not be deprived of the land stolen from the indigenous population.  The pretexts under which the settlers aquired land was through the  redefinition of much land used in common as "public land". The assertion that the village common on which the village depends for food belongs to an invader simply because no individual has title is clearly an excuse. When the land is used to build a condominium for aliens brought in to occupy the land for a foreign power there is a clear breach of the Geneva convention which stipulates that land use in occupied territories must not be changed.   No amount of self justifying on the part of Likud and hard linner appologists will change the fact that the majority of world governments, and all of those that actually have any power have condemned this practice.   |>	The government had a number of reasons for encouraging people |>to move across the green line.  They included security and politics. |> |>	The first reason was security.  A large Jewish presense makes |>it difficult for terrorists to infiltrate.  A Jewish settlements also |>act as fortresses in times of war.  Theyu also are a liability. We are talking about civilian encampments that would last no more than hours against tanks,  |>	A second reason was political.  Creating "settlements" brought |>the arabs to the negotiation table.  Had the creation of new towns and |>cities gone on another several years, there would be no place left in |>Israel where there was an arab majority.  There would have been no |>land left that could be called arab.  Don't fool yourself. It was the gulf war that brought the Israelis to the negotiating table. Once their US backers had a secure base in the gulf they insrtructed Shamir to negotiate or else.  If the creation of settlements had gone on any longer the USA would have cut the money supply.  |>	The fact that there are a hundered thousands Jews in place |>changes the face of any peace settlement, and restricts what land can |>be given away.  Not at all. They can chose to live in an arab state or return to Israel.  |>	Some of the communites created were religious.  They built |>their neighborhoods in areas where there were jews until the riots of |>the 30's and 40's.  There are communities like this in Hebron, Gaza, |>and all over.  There are also communities built near religious sites.  The existence of a comunity does not give the right for another country to annexe territory, not in Bosnia, not in the West Bank.  |>	The point is, there are many reasons people moved over the |>green line, and many reasons the government wanted them to.  Whatever |>status is negotiated for disputed territories, it will not be an "all |>or nothing" deal.  New boundaries will be drawn up by negotiation, not |>be the results of a war.  Unless the new boundaries drawn up are those of 48 there will be no peace. Araffat has precious little authority to agree to anything else.   The real issue is not the land treaty but the trade treaty. Since the Palestinians will remain heavily dependent on Israel indefinitely it is this that will be the guarantor of peace. another factor will be the return of lands confiscated by the Israeli state within Israel and the dismantling of the shadow structures which allow discrimination against non-Jews within what is nominaly a secular state.   The irony is that in return for a guarantee that the palestinian state has a non descrimination law in order to protect the remaining settlers the Israeli state is going to be forced inot the same position. This will mean outlawing of discrimination such as that which prevents arabs from buying or using much of the land.