From: rivk@ellis.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis)
Subject: Re: Israel Cancels Building in the West Bank
Reply-To: rivk@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 01:15:27 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.204313.10822@dscomsf.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>In article <1992Jul27.201335.20721@midway.uchicago.edu>,
>rivk@quads.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis) writes:
>
>|>In article <1992Jul26.145638.8927@dscomsf.desy.de>
>|>hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>|>
>|>>This is only the essential first step to show that Israel is serious
>|>>about the peace negotiations. It is futile to expect more than than.
>|>|>
>|>And where is the essential first step to show that the Arabs are
>|>serious
>|>about the peace negotiations? I haven't seen one yet.
>
>The rules of the diplomacy game is reciprocity. 

Yes. But who is expected to move first is a critical question. You
have been assuming that it must be the Israelis, and you have demon-
strated no good reason why.

In this case, it happens to have *been* the Israelis -- because they
are sufficiently serious about peace that, unlike their Arab counter-
parts, they are willing to drop their stubbornness and give up some-
thing while getting nothing sure in return. If this is something the
Arab countries want to encourage, I recommend that they come up with
something to give Israel in response, if for no other reason than that
this may persuade Israel to do it again.

>Expecting the ending of
>sanctions is far too much for this step. I haven't heard that future
>setlement building has been ruled out, this is the substantive step
>which will of course have to wait until there is some sort of
>settlement. Obviously there will have to be some reciprocal step,

Thank you. This is not something that most Arabs I have heard from,
whether in the newspapers or on this net, are willing to concede at
all.

>however I'm not sure that the Arabs have anything that Israel is
>particularly interested in in that "price range". 

Sure they do. A statement from any or all of the Arab leaders in-
volved, saying that they accept Israel's existence and no longer
hold the objective of wiping it out would do just fine in response.
It's politically cheap, since it entails giving up nothing but words
and those words are ones that will only improve their political pos-
ition with respect to the rest of the world (which has a tendency to
dislike countries which openly say their goal is to wipe other exist-
ing and recognized states off the map). And it's what all of you have
been claiming is true anyway, so ikt shouldn't bother them on that
score.

>The real point as far
>as Israel is concerned is peace and security. Something will have to be
>found, whether it is something that the Israelis actualy want is another
>matter, point is that it must be something that the Arab side do not
>want.

No; it has to be somehting that the Arab side does not want very much.
Israel gave up something it wanted in the form of those settlements (I
don't think it should have wanted them, but that's a different matter).
It simply can't be anything crucial; it can and should be something the
Arab states would prefer to keep. Tossing someone your garbage is not
an indication of seriousness and willingness to compromise; it just means
you're smart enough to get rid of it for your own sake.

>Phill Hallam-Baker

	-Nora