From: makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky)
Subject: Re: Peace for Peace
Reply-To: makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky)
Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe AZ
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 16:45:20 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.
 
	That is one of the most ignorant statements I have ever seen.  Now
I know why Skoll posts the lies he does about Kach.  He obviously does
not want him to take us seriously.

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

	Good point.  The most Israel can afford to give up will never fly
with the Arabs.  And the least the Arabs can afford to accept will
never fly with Israel.

# And while it only takes one side
# to start a war, it takes two to make peace.

	Well, despite the threat, Israel has been at peace with all of its
Arab enemies throughout most of its existence.

	It also only takes one side to break a peace (keeping all that it
negotiated for to get the peace).  And one side can impose certain
conditions whether the other side likes it or not.

# >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.

	What has changed with the relationship with Egypt?  Do you think
Egypt would have started a war with Israel after 1973 without Camp
David?  Do you have any idea what Israel spends (and how it relates to
what was being spent prior to Camp David) just to defend itself from
Egypt?

	Egypt swindled Israel in that deal.  It got everything (including
massive US aid) and gave up nothing.

# >Fine, so perhaps MK Kahane should not be referred to as "Rabbi".  I
# >just wish that "Reverend" Jesse Jackson would be treated the same way.
 
# Agreed! :-)

# >>How widespread is it?  Kach got, what, about 2% of the vote the last
# >>time it ran?  And Labor won a fairly convincing victory by Israeli
# >>standards in the last election.  I think you deceive yourself as to
# >>how widespread that opinion is.
 
# >Support for Kach is still fairly widespread in Israel.
 
# Proof?

	How about polls, especially the ones that were taken after Kach
won election when people began to realize they would not waste their
votes by voting for him in the future?  Now those numbers may be
slightly lower for the reasons Jake got.  How about the classes in
"democracy" (which were nothing more than anti Kach propaganda) that
the IDF made its soldiers attend when they realized how widespread
support for Kach was in the army?

# >The legal
# >alternatives and the requirement to vote only ONCE sent many Kach
# >supporters to other parties that share many similar points of view,
# >each with their own flavor added.
 
# What percentage (total) did those parties receive?  I'm curious to know
# it.

	What percentage did their opposition receive?

# [...]
# >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.

	I agree with you about Gaza (or at least parts of it) and actually
disagree with Kach in that respect.  I also agree with your comment
about the last alternative.

# >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?  It's a bit impractical to give that back.  But sure,
# compensation is in order.  That's a topic for negotiation in the peace
# process.

	You seem to think that should be up for negotiation, but Arab
rights should be automatic.  Why is that?  Also, what about Jewish
property in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem from which Jews were expelled
and where ownership can be proved by the presence of mezuza holes?

# >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.

	Your first part is right, your conclusion is wrong.  That is why
Kach policies must be implemented NOW.  "Peace Now" is a euphamism for
destruction tomorrow.

# >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.

	It is about practicality and what is right, not just pride.
--
	There are three types of people in the world.  Those that are good
at math and those that are not.

makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish