From: perlman@qso.Colorado.EDU (Eric S. Perlman)
Subject: Re: Fair Swap
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 21:54:28 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.144615.8627@dscomsf.desy.de> Hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>In article <1992Aug31.200824.9011@colorado.edu>, perlman@qso.Colorado.EDU (Eric
>S. Perlman) writes:
>
>|>>The territories also have a net negative military value. So long as Israel
>|>>occupies territory there is absolutely no possibility of outside assistance.
>|>
>|>It depends how you define it.
>
>As a point of clarification, the territories did at one time have military
>value, however not now that the arab states have access to modern weapons - the
>fall of the USSR is a particular problem here since there are plenty of first
>rate MiGs etc on the market.

In the future, this will be a problem.  But from the standpoint of the
safety - or lack thereof - of Israel's population, you're not only
talking about the danger of a mass invasion.  You're also talking about
the range of Katyushas and other shells, and also the (very short)
accurate range of Scuds.  Now Scuds can be fired over 400 miles away,
but for any kind of accuracy you want to be within 20.  If you give away
the whole WB, then Scuds can suddenly be aimed at Jerusalem from only a
few miles away, and from less than fifteen miles away from Tel Aviv.
These would hit and be deadly.  Same with shells.  What this means is
that any peace needs to be iron-clad and Israel must not settle for
anything less.  It also means that the territories still have value
strategically.

>|>  Now if you're speaking in terms of
>|>assistance you might say what you're saying.  But you're just plain
>|>distorting fifty years of history.  Point of fact, Phill - with the
>|>possible exception of actions in Lebanon, all of Israel's wars have been
>|>defensive only.  Not a one has been fought for conquest.
>
>With the exception of Sharons one man war yes, it is hard to describe it as an
>Israeli war when the Prime Minister was being told that the troops were
>retreating as Sharon gave the orders to advance.
>
>The point I made concerned the likelyhood of outside assistance. Prey explain
>how likely you consider aid from Britain France or any other EC country except
>in the case of guaranteeing a peace agreement made under UN auspices? The US
>might mount a Kewaiti type operation but this cannot be relied on and in any
>case the US army has only won one war in history without foreign assistance and
>that was against Mexico.

Excuse me!?  I dare say that Europe would probably not have been able to
contain Hitler in the West without the US - not discounting the Soviet
Union's large role in the East.  The fact is that you can't count a war
for independence because every independence movement gets aid from
someone.  Then there's the 1812 war, where there wasn't much if any
interference (France and Germany were deeply embroiled in conflicts of
their own), the civil war, where it was the Confederacy(!) which got
British help, the Mexican war, and in WWI and WWII the US was part of a
coalition and helped Europe out for years before that!  You're really
preaching a skewed form of history here.  Finally, if you know anything
about the Israeli army, then you'd know that the IDF bases its
philosophy not on the availability of the US or another major power
during a war, but on the more likely possibility that Israeli forces
will be going it alone.
 
>Given that even the UK can't guarantee her saftey without being a part of a
>defensive aliance there is little chance of Israel managing it. Unless there is
>a return of the territories nobody is going to be preoared to make such an
>aliance.

I don't think such pessimism is the case.

>|>>|> If one believes in the Arabs - one should not quibble about
>|>>|>trifles. As a matter of fact if one takes this EXTREMELY NAIVE position
>|>>|>one can hardly justify the claim over Jerusalam as only Israel's.
>|>>
>|>>I did say the whole of the occupied territories. This includes East Jerusalem
>|>of
>|>>course.
>|>
>|>Jerusalem is Israel's capitol.  Period.  Get used to it.  Divided city
>|>arrangements have never worked, and won't work here either.  Especially
>|>not if Arafat is in charge of a Palestinian state.
>
>The axiom on which the New World Order is based is the rule of international law
>as defined by the UN. The UN regards E. Jreusalem as occupied. 

The majority of the GA does.  UNGA resolutions do not have the
force of international law.  UNSC resolutions do.  So your argument
falls.

>|>Other territories are negotiable, but not Jerusalem.  And E. Jerusalem
>|>is *not* occupied territory.  Not when you remember a little history -
>|>like what happened in 1948 and thereafter - Jews were barred from our
>|>holiest sites for twenty years.   
>
>Not relevant.

No, very relevant.  It's very relevant to bring up how the previous
occupier treated it, for it makes a huge contrast with how Israeli
occupation has been - extremely benevolent by comparison, though still
not (in my opinion) up to snuff in a number of areas.

>|>>As for being nieve I think that you are the one being nieve. You think that
>|>the
>|>>present situation is sustainable. It is not, the USA is becomming
>|>isolationist,
>|>
>|>Really?  This just ignores the last twelve years of American History, as
>|>well as the platforms - announced - of *both* of the current major-party
>|>candidates for president.  Point of fact, Phill - you're just plain full
>|>of it here.
>
>If you beleive politicians, particularly US ones, you are the one being nieve.

Is your last name Quayle?  It's spelled naive.  Not nieve.  Was this on
a flash card too? :-)

Once again, this ignores history, as well as the positions of both
candidates, and their histories.  Politicians will be politicians, yes,
but unless you can give me a concrete reason I think the best way to
judge a politician is by his/her record.

>What we are seeing is the backlash from the Regan feelgood years. After all the
>song and dance about the USA being number 1 etc and taking the lead role in the
>world, the US people are discovering that Regan/Bush bankrupted the ecconomy to
>achieve it.
>
>All Presidents tend to pretentions to being leader of the free world etc. It is
>the Senate that has the isolationist tendencies.

Then how about some evidence?  You certainly haven't provided any, just
assorted accusations.  Accusations which, I might add, go against what I
know quite a bit.  If I'm to be persuaded to change my mind, I need
evidence.

>|>> You seem to have the nieve idea that Israel can stand alone against
>|>>the arabs without the USA and USSR pulling string in the background. Before
>|>>there were always severe limits to what either side would allow to happen,
>|>now
>|>>that the USA has a permenant base in Kewait it is not as interested in Israel
>|>as
>|>>it once was.
>|>
>|>Please read the platforms of both parties.  Might teach you a thing or
>|>two.
>
>Again you appear to trust Bush and Clinton. Not particularly sensible if you
>consider that neither will be president in 8 years time. Security of nations
>requires a rather longer term approach. It is better to negotiate now from a
>position of strength than wait for the strength to fail.

No, neither Bush nor Clinton will be president after another 8 years,
but neither does Israel's security philosophy depend on that.  Your last
sentence is certainly the case however.

>The long term danger is of a populist movement that takes advantage of the
>general beleif that Congress is in the hands of "special interests". Any hick
>politician with no scruples and a lot of ambition could weld together the
>discontented into a political machine. We have already seen the rise of
>neo-fascism in France where Le Penn got 15% of the vote, there is quite a strong
>possibility of the US going the same way within the next 50 years.

It's possible, but the US has another barrier that many other countries
don't in this way.  No other Western democracy has congressional districts - or
the equivalent - which have populations in excess of 500K (though if you
include India, the US falls well into second, for India's districts are
over a million).  This significantly lowers the chance of a third,
extreme party's winning an election for a congressional seat but does
not eliminate it.  



-- 
"How sad to see/A model of decorum and tranquillity/become like any other sport
A battleground for rival ideologies to slug it out with glee." -Tim Rice,"Chess"
     Eric S. Perlman 				 <perlman@qso.colorado.edu> 
  Center for Astrophysics and Space Astronomy, University of Colorado, Boulder
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc