From: perlman@qso.Colorado.EDU (Eric S. Perlman)
Subject: Re: BILL CLINTON ON ISRAEL AND THE MIDDLE
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 17:26:55 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.143158.13093@ncrcae.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM> nabil@ncrcol.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (Nabil Idriss) writes:
>>>>    o Pressured Israel to make once sided concessions in the
>>>>      peace process
>>>>
>>>
>>>     * Pressured the Arabs to make concessions too.
>>
>>What pressure? What concessions? Where? But the Arabs were strong and
>>steadfast, and didn't yield to the pressure.
>
>Well, one of the major concessions is the departure from the idea of
>liberating Palestine and accepting the WB and Gazza. The PLO is not
>on the negotiating table, although I would not be surprised if this
>changes in the future. the Arabs demanded Israeli withdrawal first 
>before negotiations,now they don't.

Of course, it should be pointed out that they still demand that as the
only acceptable outcome of the negotiations.  Hardly a concession.  In
fact, it should also be pointed out that their original position, rather
than being in accord with 242/338, directly challenged and contradicted
both resolutions, which call for a withdrawal from territories, not
necessarily all territories, as *part of* a negotiated settlement, and
*NOT* unilateral withdrawal as a *precondition* to a negotiated
settlement.  That's no concession, that's only coming to your senses.

>>>>    o Ignored the cruel and crippling economic boycott of
>>>>      Israel by its Arab neighbors, and disregarded other
>>>>      roadblocks to peace
>>> 
>>>     * The Economic boycott will end once peace is achieved
>>>       and the Palestinians have their own homeland.
>>
>>So the economic boycott won't be one of the Arab concessions, eh?
>
>If Rabin was correct in what he said last week on MCcneil Lehrer news
>hour that he is prepared to offer the Palestininas a first step self
>rule and elections on the next peace talks, it would be a good time
>to end of boycott. I would prefer to see a final solution before the
>end of the boycott.

OK fine.  It should however be pointed out that the boycott (including
the secondary boycott) is well-nigh illegal under international law.

>>>>    o Denied Israel's request for humanitarian assistance in
>>>>      resettling Russian Jews, and
>>>>
>>>     * The United States have always helped Israel to resettle
>>>       Jews in Israel. Recently the Loan guarantees have been
>>>       approved.
>>
>>Resettle Jews in Israel because of a history of annihilation
>>in every other country in which we settled (and for the last 44 years
>>the Arabs have been dedicated to the "final solution" of annihilating 
>>us there, too). And the Loan Guarantees have been approved because
>>Israel agreed-to and stopped-building new settlements.
>
>You make it sound like that building settlements in the territories was
>a right for Israel to do and they gave up this right for the loan gurantees.

The two didn't have much to do with each other in anything but rhetoric.

>>>>    o Eroded Israel's security needs by selling billions of
>>>>      dollars in sophisticated weaponry to Israel's Arab neighbors.
>>>>
>>>     * If the United States does not sell weapons to allies like 
>>>       Saudi Arabia then Britian will and the United States will
>>>       loose billions of dollars. After all they are allies and
>>>       they boost the economy of the Western world by lowering
>>>       the price of oil. 
>>
>>Where do you buy *your* gasoline? I pay $1.25/gallon, up from $0.98
>>last September.
>
>Did you notice how much the price of gasoline went up during the Gulf Crisis?
>$40+ a gallon which would make the gasoline price $2.50/gallon. If the OPEC wants
>to raise the prices to this range, they can. That is actually was the intention
>of Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait, he wanted to raise the price of oil
>to improve his economy and not to liberate Palestine. That is why the West
>went crazy and fought that war. I hope that you realize that the allies 
>fought the Gulf war for this reason and not to re-install the Kuwaiti
>government.

Clearly this *was* a part of the decision on both sides.  However,
you're a fool if you think that this was the controlling part, on either
side. 
 
>>>>Palestinian State.  The Palestinians should have the right -- as specified in
>>>>the Camp David Accord -- to participate in the determination of their future.
>>>>But they do no have the right to determine Israel's future.  For that reason,
>>>>Bill Clinton opposes the creation of an independent Palestinian state.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Did he really say that? I have never heard it. Why the Palestinians have no right
>>>and Israel have right?
>>
>>Because Jordan=Palestine.
>>
>Simply NO! Jordan=Jordan=The Hashemites and Palestine=Palestine=Palestinians.

There is, however, a big problem with who is really a Palestinian.  Note
that I mean no disrespect, but the amount of false refugee passports
which have the UNWRA stamp is pretty darned huge.  So is the level of
fraud.  Further, Jordan's population is well over half Palestinian, and
many of those *aren't* 1948 refugees.

-- 
"How sad to see/A model of decorum and tranquillity/become like any other sport
A battleground for rival ideologies to slug it out with glee." -Tim Rice,"Chess"
     Eric S. Perlman 				 <perlman@qso.colorado.edu> 
  Center for Astrophysics and Space Astronomy, University of Colorado, Boulder
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast