

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.



Again territorial expansion by force.



The UN defines them as occupied. They are recognised as such by every
nation on earth (excluding one small caribean island).



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.



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.



Theyu also are a liability. We are talking about civilian encampments that
would last no more than hours against tanks,


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.


Not at all. They can chose to live in an arab state or return to Israel.


The existence of a comunity does not give the right for another country
to annexe territory, not in Bosnia, not in the West Bank.


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. 

