what occupation?

Submitted by john mcginley (United States), Apr 17, 2006 at 17:11

Thanks for the review. And please keep up the good work of monitoring.

I have always understood that land taken in a war of self-defense does not consitutute "occupation" and that that it is at the discretion of the country defedning itself to return or not return to the agressing country the land so taken. Likewise the country defending itself has the right to formally annex into itself land so taken. The Israelis took East Jerusalem and the West Bank (and Gaza) in a war of self-defense initiated by a justified "live-or-die" pre-emptive strike against Egypt and Syria and as a response to Jordan's decision to militarily support Eygpt and Syria. Case closed.

Even so, it is no longer useful for Israel to maintain any settelements in areas which it has not intention of integrating into a Greater Israel. ((Israel may find it necessary to maintain a military presence along the Jordan valley without settlements.)) That is why the evacuation of Gaza was the right move at the right time and why the dismantling of many of the settlements in the West Bank will be appropriate. Realistic final boundaries should be made by Israel over the next several years, culminating with formal annexation. With one exception, this means annexing into a Greater Israel the large blocks of Jewish settelements and not much else. The sooner the better. The one exception is the Jewish community within the present city-limits of Hebron. Pragmatic considerations argue against integrating this community into a Greater Israel. But the biggest pragmatic argument is the one which doesn't appear pragmatic: Israel's soul. The 1929 slaughter aided and abetted by the British. And this is the one case in which the "Biblical" argument is signficant. [["Philistia" -- the Gaza -- was never part of Israel; even King David couldn't pull it off.

Such hypocricy on this when Sharon was was doing what he was doing.]]. The tomb of the Patriarchs (and, Rachel excepted, Matriarchs). And Hebron was Judea's capital for seven years before King David set up shop in Jerusalem. Zionism will have failed if Hebron ends up not having a safe, secure, and permanent Jewish community within its city limits. This is the real Pragmatism which trumps the near-sighted pragmatism. Indeed it may very well be in Israel's PRAGMATIC interest to make a deal on this concerning Arab East Jerusaelm (((note that I do NOT mean any part of the "Old City" or compromisng IN ANY WAY Sovereignty over the Temple MOunt)))) with a peace partner worthy of that name. In the mean time annex the obvious places; maintian viability for the community in Hebron; and keep the powDer dry.

John W. McGinley

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".