From: gmeltzne@jarthur.claremont.edu (Manu)
Subject: Re: Israel's peace talks with Syria
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 01:51:31 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.165605.9014@usl.edu> pssres12@ucs.usl.edu (Vignes Gerard M) writes:
>In article <1992Sep11.161313.8281@cs.brown.edu> hm@cs.brown.edu (Harry Mamaysky) writes:
>>In today's (9/11/92) New York Times (NYT) there is a front page article entitled
>>"Israelis Disclose Talks with Syria on Steps to Peace." The article states that
>>the Rabin government is very seriously considering giving back at least parts
>>of the Golan in exchange for a comprehensive peace agreement with the Syrians.
>
>	The Rabin government is seriously considering
>	peace with its neighbors.  Returning the Golan
>	is simply one condition for achieving that peace.



>
>>Of course, I feel (as hopefully we all do) that every peace treaty which
>> Israel signs with its Arab neighbors is a tremendous and highly commendable
>>accomplishment. Peace is ultimately the desire of every Jew and Arab (and any
>>rational person for that matter).
>
>	But, of course, peace (just as in war) carries a price.
>	And if one can escape that price, then one will surely
>	make every attempt to do so ;-}
>

	And the Syrians seem to be the most stingy of them all.

>>However, I am not fully convinved that land concession is a correct course of
>>action in this situation. I know that the Syrians are most adamant on the
>>issue of land return for peace. Then again so are the Palestinians and the
>>Jordanians.Israel, though, does not seem to be in a position in which it could
>>realistically make land concessions. The Golan Heights are of vast strategic
>>imprtance to Israel. Besides the fact that the Golan is a very mountaneous
>>region, it also happens to lie in very close proximity to Israel's sole source
>>of fresh water.
>
>	The "vast strategic importance" argument is bogus.
>	Rapid evolution of weapons systems and their general
>	availability has rendered territorial boundaries
>	incapable of providing protection from attack.
>	Only viable intelligence and air-combat capability
>	can protect a population today, and Israel has
>	the best services in the region---better by far
>	than most in the developing world.
>

	I'm glad you're not a military strategist in the American Army.  With
all the missle systems, and air attack methods that exist, you still need the
ground personnel to capture any land. And to capture the land, you have to
get there first.  Sure you could drop paratroopers, but I'd like to see you 
drop a battlion of T-72s.  In order to capture Israeli land, her tanks must 
be eliminated.  The Syrians couldn't accomplish that w/o tanks of her own.
Thus, the Golan Heights are an integral part of the Israeli defense.

>>After decades of unprovoked hostility on the part of the Syrians, how can
>>Israel ever be fully certain of Syria's sincerity to abide by a peace
>>agreement. What is Syria just wants the highlands back so as to be able to
>>more easily attack and shell Jewish settlements close to the Syrian border.
>>This would mean that Israel would once again have to rely on military
>>operations to liberate the already-once-liberated Golan. And certainly, Jewish
>>lives are not taken very lightly by the Israeli government.
>
>	After decades of unprovoked hostility on the part
>	of the Israelies, how can Syria ever be fully certain
>	of Israel's sincerity to abide by a peace agreement.
>	What if Israel just wants to keep the highlands so as
>	to be able to more easily attack and shell Syrian
>	settlements close to the Israeli border.  This would
>	mean that Syria would once again have to rely on military
>	operations to liberate the already-once-liberated Golan.
>	And certainly, Syrian lives are not taken very lightly
>	by the Syrian government.
>					(paraphrased from Harry Mamaysky)
>
>

Israel didn't attack Syria in 1948.  She didn't attack Syria in '67 and she 
didn't attack her in 1973.  Furthermore, Israel doesn't make a habit of 
shelling Syrian settlers as Syria did when she owned the Golan. 

>>I believe, in fact I might add I hope, that Rabin is planning to offer only a
>>token land exchange for peace. Certainly, in such a scenario, Israeli security
>>would not be threatened. Furthermore, after years of publically declaring that
>>it will never even talk peace without an Israeli concession to give back
>>liberated land, Syria would benefit from a token concession in that it, and
>>the Assad government, would be able to save whatever face they have left with
>>the international community.
>
>	Both Rabin and Assad need a comprehensive treaty
>	because both Israel and Syria need lasting peace.
>	Your token gestures are, at best, token gestures,
>	not earnest negotiation in good faith, but merely
>	subterfuge for a strategy of wait-and-see.
>

	The only gesture that Syria has made was to come to the conference.  
A very inexpensive gesture indeed.



>>Furthermore, without the support of the once mighty Soviet Union as a backprod,
>>Syria no longer poses the military threat it once did to Israel. Nor can Syria
>>count on the Soviet influence to act as a deterrent to the world's
>>disenchanment with Syrian political views. Of course, Syria still does have
>>its oil rich Arab buddies. But then again, some of those are also realizing
>>that peace with Israel is an inevitability, now that all hopes of driving
>>those darned Israelis into the Mediterranean have long ago been lost.
>
>	By your logic, it would seem that a surprise
>	nuclear attack by Israel upon Syria is the best
>	method of ensuring future Israeli security.
>	Are you prepared to risk such an operation?
>	Do you believe the benefits outweigh the costs?



	Nuclear attack? What logic course did you take?  I don't even see the 
word "attack" mentioned once in that paragraph.  Not even a hint of offensive 
military action of any sort.
>
>>Indeed, then, it would seem that a token gesture on Israel's part would be the
>>proper (necessary ?) thing to do. For one, this would allow Syria to save
>>face. Secondly, it would show the world Israel's sincerity towards a
>>comprehensive peace agreement. Thirdly, this would appease George's ever more
>>prying political policy in the Middle East. Finally, Syria, too, should feel a
>>certain sense of urgency now that George may soon be leaving office; and rumor
>>has it that Clinton will not be quite as lenient with the Syrians as the Bush
>>administratino has been.
>
>	Your attempt to politicize the peace process is
>	as artificial as it is transparent.  The Mideast
>	needs peace so that it may join the developed world.
>	Israel is part of the Mideast, and if it wishes to
>	participate, it too must work to achieve peace.
>	For Israel to claim special status above its home
>	region is as arrogant and as shortsighted as the
>	Afrikaner's attempts to construct Aparteid.
>
	Do you actually think that George Bush is pushing a peace treaty for 
anything other than political purposes?  Do you think he really cares about
a just settlement.  He just wants A settlement.
	Second, where do you pick up the Israeli sense of superiority in that
paragraph?  

>>Of course, I mean to make no light of the current situation. It is of grave
>>concern that peace be established in the Middle East between Israel and ALL of
>>its Arab neighbors.
>
>	Yes, provided, I suppose, that the status quo
>	does not shift perceptibly?
> 
	You suppose wrong.


Manu

>						Gerard Vignes
>
>-- 
>
>pssres12@ucs.usl.edu	Gerard Vignes, USL PO Box 42709, Lafayette LA 70504 USA
>


-- 
Email: gmeltzne@jarthur.claremont.edu            

"The Arab governments were largely responsible for the ruin of the Palestinian
  Arabs"     -Sir John Bagot Glubb
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast