"Lowell C. Savage" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in part: >However, there is a good reason for doing it (and I'm not interested in all >the stupid "touchy-feely" stuff like "it'll show the Palestinians we're >'serious' about peace, or whatever).
>The reason is that it will (at least in Gaza, and probably also in the West >Bank) shorten Israel's lines of defense. This is amazingly similar to the Proclamation of 1763. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Royal_Proclamation_of_1763 for details. Just substitute "Jews" for "whites" and the Palestinian Authority for the required Indian tribe meetings. The difference is that the British relinquished claim on Israel decades earlier. > Now that the Gaza settlements are >gone, Israel's border with Gaza is basically those two straight lines. Actually my understanding is that Israel is still going to assert control over the movement of goods & people into & out of the port. Besides, it's still technically an occupied part of Egypt. >Of course, my made-up >example would be much weaker than the case Israel has against the settlers >since one of the functions of the government is to protect its people. What, Israel is obligated to defend Jews everywhere? >Another function is to engage in foreign policy on behalf of the larger >community. So even if the settlers were to say that they no longer needed >or wanted government protection, some their likely actions (like, killing >Palestinians in self-defense) would amount to foreign policy actions. Just as with the Proclamation. After a few years, 1774 to be exact, the area in question became part of Quebec anyway. (Upper Canada had not yet been split off. I kid my friend Nancy in Michigan about her living in Upper Canada.) Maybe there'll be a similar "resolution" in Israel. In Your Sly Tribe, Robert _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list Libnw@immosys.com List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
