From: jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni)
Subject: Re: Peace for Peace
Organization: The Department of Redundancy Department
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 92 01:07:51 GMT

In article <dfs.724521829@kehleyr> dfs@doe.carleton.ca (David F. Skoll) writes:
>In <1992Dec16.003141.18723@bony1.bony.com> jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni) writes:

>>Peace for peace.  The USSR didn't give any land to the US to improve
>>relations, nor did the US give any land to the USSR to destroy nukes.
>
>However, neither the US nor the USSR occupied any part of the other's
>land.

Are you suggesting here that the Arabs are occupying Israeli land or
that Israel is occupying Arab land?

>>Peace for peace is emminently sensible and just.
>
>It will never fly with the Arabs.

If peace will never be acceptable to them (and there is an unfortunate
argument that this is indeed the case with some Islamic groups) then
perhaps waging peace with Arabs is a waste of time.  This isn't what
you were trying to say, was it? 

>And while it only takes one side to start a war, 

We know.  The Arabs have been at war with themselves for ages and
ages. 

>it takes two to make peace.

So if the Arabs cannot make it to a peaceful agreement, should the
onus of even further concessions be put onto Israel?

>>If the Arabs cannot
>>bring themselves to find peace with Israel, do  you truly believe that
>>giving them a bit more land (not that they are short of this
>>commodity) is going to convince them?
>
>Just maybe.  It seemed to work with Egypt.

For all it's shortcomings, Egypt is one of the most enlightened and
advanced of Arab states (so much so that I have heard Egyptians tell
me that they are "Egyptians" and not "Arabs").  It is different in
many ways from many of Israel's other foes.  They Egyptians couldn't
afford to continue to wage war; they were broke.  And Uncle Sam paid
Egypt handsomely to accept peace, not to mention the land and oil that
Israel gave them.  How much oil and land and US money should we all be
giving to Syria or to Iraq or to Saudi Arabia to accept peace?  The
comparison with Egypt, like your comparisons of Kahane to Arafat et. al., 
is simply invalid.   

>[...]
>>I am not proposing Israeli Imperialism into Lebanon, Jordan or Kuwait.
>>I AM suggesting that Israeli control of Judea, Samaria and Gaza could
>>be perfectly reasonable.  
>
>As we've seen in the last 5 years, it is impractical for Israel to
>maintain indefinite military control over Judea, Samaria and Gaza - it
>costs more than it's worth.  Even senior members of the Israeli
>cabinet are getting sick of the situation in Gaza.  The only
>alternatives are Kach's - expel all the Arabs; the "Peaceniks'" -
>withdraw; or annex the land and give the Arabs full civil and
>political rights as Israeli citizens.  I can't see anyone, Arab or
>Jew, going for the last alternative.

Granted, while Palestine is mostly controlled by the Hashemite Kingdom
of Jordan, Palestineans will prefer to battle Israel for statehood,
rather than the more vindictive and forceful Jordan.  You're right,
it's a difficult situation without obvious solutions.  But withdrawing
from the WB and G without expelling Arabs from Haifa, Yaffo and
Jerusalem will simply result in precisely the same problems and
arguments arising in 20 or 30 years.  How much more land should be
ceded by Israel then? 

>>But the Arabs control land that they took from Jewish inhabitants, who
>>have no political rights there, either.
>
>Which land is this?  Do you mean land in Arab countries confiscated when
>the Jews fled?  

Yes.

>It's a bit impractical to give that back.  

Kinda like the WB and G.

>But sure,
>compensation is in order.  That's a topic for negotiation in the peace
>process.

So you agree to Land for Land, after all!

>>By your logic, the Arabs
>>should be offering Israel land.  In fact, seeing as it is the Arabs
>>who have been losing the wars, Israel should be suing for peace on her
>>own terms, not vica versa.  Ludicrous, no?
>
>Ludicrous, yes.  But time is on the side of the Arabs.  While Israel
>has won all the wars and is right now at an advantage, the Arabs,
>because of their large population and land, can afford to sit and
>wait.  That is why it's better to start trying for peace NOW, so that
>Arab attitudes can start to change over the next few decades.

Agreed.  This is why I personally feel that one of the most important
things to do is to advance democracy in the Arab world.  When people
have more control of their own destiny and are not governed by rulers
who constantly seek to blame their shortcomings on Israel and other
Infidel outsiders, then Arabs may find peace with themselves, not to
mention Israel and the rest of the world.  Giving up land to Jordan or
towards some new "Palestinean" state won't advance these goals at all.

>>Most of these communities have been annihilated in the last few
>>decades, with nary a trace left in the lands they lived in for so
>>long.  If something like this would have happened to someone else, it
>>would be decried as "ethinic cleansing" or a "holocaust".  Why you
>>might still think that Israel should offer land to the Arabs to make
>>amends is beyond me.
>
>I do not think Israel should offer land to "make amends."  In a
>perfectly just world, Eretz Israel would have remained empty until
>1948, when all of it could have been reclaimed.  That didn't happen.
>I'm talking practicality here.  It's a sad situation when people talk
>about "justice" and "past wrongs" to avoid the only practical way
>to make peace.  We must swallow our pride.

Israel has been willing to do this.  Israel has made virtually ALL of
the concessions and offers at the current peace talks.  Israel has
made no formal claim for Jewish property stolen in Arab states.  In
practical terms, what else should Israel be doing to advance the cause
of peace?  And what should the Arabs be doing to advance the same
cause?

-- 
Jake Livni  jake@bony1.bony.com              10 years from now, George Bush will
American-Occupied New York                   have replaced Jimmy Carter as the
My opinions only - employer has no opinions. standard of a failed President.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish