Xref: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu talk.politics.mideast:75939 talk.politics.misc:178437
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast,talk.politics.misc
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!magnesium.club.cc.cmu.edu!news.sei.cmu.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!das-news.harvard.edu!endor!adam
From: adam@endor.uucp (Adam Shostack)
Subject: Re: Israel's Expansion
Message-ID: <1993Apr18.212610.5933@das.harvard.edu>
Sender: usenet@das.harvard.edu (Network News)
Organization: Aiken Computation Lab, Harvard University
References: <18APR93.15729846.0076@VM1.MCGILL.CA>
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1993 21:26:10 GMT
Lines: 86

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.


>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.

	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.

	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.

>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.

	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.

	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.

	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.

	Individuals who crossed the green line had several reasons for
doing so.  They include financial, religious, and political reasons.

	Many of the communities created were "bedroom" communities.
Suburbs.  A house 20 minutes outside of Tel Aviv cost half less if it
was on the wrong side of the green line.  People who moved there
wanted a decent home at a nice price.

	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 last reason people moved was to establish a political
Jewish presense outside the green line.  They built communities to
control important intersections, important hilltops, roads, and other
places.

	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.

Adam

Adam Shostack 				       adam@das.harvard.edu

"If we had a budget big enough for drugs and sexual favors, we sure
wouldn't waste them on members of Congress..."   -John Perry Barlow
