From: hm@cs.brown.edu (Harry Mamaysky)
Subject: Re: Israel's peace talks with Syria
Organization: Brown Computer Science Dept.
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 17:49:05 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.165605.9014@usl.edu>, pssres12@ucs.usl.edu (Vignes Gerard M) writes:
|> >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 ;-}

I am not sure what price it is that you are talking about.

|> 	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.

Even Syria is not blatant enough to arm the terrorists it has traditionally
supported with modern arms, of which it is no longer receiving vast quantities
from the now defunct Soviet Union. What terrorists do have are grenades and
other light arms. These are most easily pearched upon a mountain, from where
they can rain down upon the Jewish populace. This, of course, would pretty
much return things to theway they were before 1973.

Syria does not pose a threat to the existence of Israel as a nation. And it
was never my intention to imply this. What I did mean was that for the
populace of the surrounding areas, the return of the Golan would present a
potentially very dangerous situation, in which they would constantly be under
fear of artillery assault. Certainly, this is of strategic importance to a
governent which is trying to insure the safety of its people.

|> >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)

Your paraphrasing ability is most commendable. However, your perspective of
history is not. Israel has *NEVER* been the aggressor in the Israeli-Arab
disputes. When Israel has launched attacks against Arab targets it has
*ALWAYS* done so either in retaliation for past Arab terrorist activity, or
(as in the case of the Six Day vistory) to insure a strategic advantage in an
inevitable conflict.

In fact, Israel has traditionally gone to great pains in order to prevent as
many civilian casualties as possible. This is a historically proven and
accurate fact. Since the earliest days of the Jewish liberation struggles
against Britain, all Jewish revolutionaries tried to avoid civilian casualties
if *AT ALL* possible. This is still the policy of the IDF. Even in the Lebanon
operation of 1982, Israel risked Jewish infantry lives in attacking terrorist
positions (as opposed to air bombing the entire area) so as to avoid any
innocent casualties.

In fact, your claim that Israel has ever attacked Arab civilian targets is
outrageous. That those Syrians who live on the Israeli border have any fear
for their safety from mortar fire (or any other Israeli agression) is simply
an untruth. In fact, your entire paraphrase is fully absurd.

|> 	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.

I agree that peace is in everyone's best interest. Realistically, though, how
much of the Golan do you think Israel would ever be willing to give back.

|> 	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?

This is again an outrageous warping of what I have written. By no means am I a
proponent of unnecessary violence. Human lives, Arab and Jewish alike, are the
most important things with which this Earth has been blessed. To even suggest
that I support unprovoked nuclear attacks is preposterous and untrue. Please
never put words into my mouth again.

The sanctity of all human life is unarguable. This is why we need peace - in
order to ultimately save lives. Of course, as peace built upon straw, where
one side is exploited by the other is no peace, and may infact ultimately lead
to great blood shed. This is to be avoided at all cost.

|> >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.

I attempt no politicization. I am merely speaking pragmatically about the
current political situation in the international community. Syria needs to
cover its ass (so to speak). It does not want to find itself in the same
position - that of a political outcast - as Libya and Iraq now do. Syria needs
credibility, and that is exactly what these "token land concessions" would
give it.

Lastly, I am a proponent of peace. I do not advocate, though, a blind peace
treaty. Syria, and the Arabs, have been the agressors in the Middle East
struggle. Israel paid for the Arab agression with the lives of her children.
These can never be given back. The Arabs must, too, learn to accept the price
of their actions. War is not a no lose proposition. To start a war means to be
willing to accept its consequences. There is no such thing as agression
without the risk of the consequences of defeat. Syria must realize this. As
must the rest of the world. War sucks - for all involved. Unfortunately, war
is some times necessary. I sincerely hope that our generation, and our
children, can make it so that, in this world, there will never be a need for
war again.

An Israeli-Syrian peace would be a highly welcome start.

Harry.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast