In article <C5qHyA.5Gn@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes: > >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.  	And Lebanon has a right to make this decision without Syrian troops controlling the country.  Until Syria leaves, and free elections take place, its is rediculous to claim that the Lebanese would even be involved in determining what happens to their country.  >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.  	I expect you will agree that the same holds true for Syria having no right to be in Lebanon?  >|>	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).  	The UN also thought Zionism is racism.  That fails to make it true.  >|>	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,  	They lasted weeks against tanks in '48, and stopped those tanks from advancing.  They also lasted days in '73.  There is little evidence for the claim that they are military liabilities.  	They evidence is there to show that when infiltrations take place over the Jordan river, the existance of large, patrolled kibutzim forces terrorists into a very small area, where they are usually picked up in the morning.  >|>	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.  	Nonsense.  Israel has been trying to get its neighbors to the negotiating table for 40 years.  It was the gulf war that brought the arabs to the table, not the Israelis.  >|>	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.  	Nonsense.  According to Arafat, Israel must be destroyed.  He has never come clean and denied that this is his plan.  He always waffles on what he means.  	``When the Arabs set off their volcano, there will only be Arabs in 	this part of the world.  Our people will continue to fuel the torch 	of the revolution with rivers of blood until the whole of the 	occupied homeland is liberated...'' 	--- Yasser Arafat, AP, 3/12/79     Adam Shostack 				       adam@das.harvard.edu