From: jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni)
Subject: Peace for Peace
Organization: The Department of Redundancy Department
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 00:31:41 GMT

In article <dfs.723406923@vash> dfs@doe.carleton.ca (David F. Skoll) writes:
>In <1992Dec3.002242.21680@bony1.bony.com> jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake
>Livni) writes:

>>The land for peace solution
>>that Kahane opposed (along with many other Israelis - then, as now)
>>simply isn't a solution because the same situation will arise again
>>soon after land is traded for peace.
>
>Possibly.  So we're arguing over time frames - Kach's policies, if
>implemented, will mean disaster for Israel soon.  If land-for-peace
>is implemented, it means possible disaster some time down the road.
>So what's the answer?

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. 
Peace for peace is emminently sensible and just.  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?

>>Virtually every politician everywhere does precisely the same thing.
>
>But is it justifiable?  Is it in keeping with the behaviour of a Rabbi,
>who presumably has higher moral standards than "virtually every
>politician?"

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.
(Sometimes he is.)

>>There is a widespread opinion that ignoring Kahane's message would be
>>catastrophic.  
>
>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.  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.

>>>No, the Arabs have offered no land for peace
>>>- but why should they offer land?  [...]
>>
>>The Arabs seem to have the vast majority of it, some 98% of the Middle 
>>East, I believe.  And yet, they cry about the "stolen land that they
>>cannot live without..."  
>
>Of course, the Arabs issue propaganda.  But really, what is the justification
>for Israel taking over more land than it controls now?

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.  

>>Why should Israel be the one to offer land for peace?
>
>Because Israel currently controls land which it won in 1967, and 
>the majority of the inhabitants of that land are Arabs, and have
>no political rights on that land.

But the Arabs control land that they took from Jewish inhabitants, who
have no political rights there, either.  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?

>>Haven't a large
>>proportion of Israelis been stampeded from land that they once lived
>>on and owned and which is now under Arab rule?
>
>No.  Not a large proportion.  

Nearly a million Jews have been stampeded out of communities that they
had lived in for centuries and even millenia.  This was in the 1940's.
These people and their descendants in Israel now number at least
1,000,000, not to mention the many who now live in Europe and North
America and elsewhere.  Is more than 1,000,000 Israelis "not a large
proportion"? 

>Of course, many Jews lost everything
>in Arab countries.  That's a matter for negotiation during the peace
>process.  But compromise means neither side can get what it wants.
>There is simply no way for Israel to get everything it wants and at
>the same time to have peace.  That's a fundamental reality.  It may
>even be that peace is impossible because the Arabs will never accept
>Israel.  But until we know that for sure, we should try the road of
>peace.

Haven't we?  Have we gotten anything for it?  

>>  If land for peace
>>sounds so good to the Arabs, why shouldn't the Israelis respond in
>>kind?  It is as historically and legally justified as the Arab
>>position.
>
>I think not.  After all, whether you like it or not, Arabs have lived
>in Eretz Yisrael for hundreds of years.  If you can prove Jewish
>rights to land in Arab countries on the same scale, go ahead - I'd
>be interested.

The Iraqui, Syrian, Yemeni, Egyptian and Iranian Jewish communities
are very ancient.  Some of our great sages lived and studied in these
lands.  The story of Esther took place in what is now Iran.  The
Jewish communities in Lebanon, Algeria, Tunisia and Morrocco are
perhaps just as old.  We're talking centuries and millenia here.  

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.

-- 
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.