From: pssres12@ucs.usl.edu (Vignes Gerard M)
Subject: Re: Israel's peace talks with Syria
Organization: Univ. of Southwestern La., Lafayette
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 22:46:43 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.174905.11245@cs.brown.edu> hm@cs.brown.edu (Harry Mamaysky) writes:
>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.

	You understand when it is in your interests to
	and otherwise, you do not.  How curious.

>|> 	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.

	Are we discussing a peace process in 1992,
	or the history of the Mideast Conflict?
	While the two cannot be divorced,
	failure to distinguish betwixt them
	might lead one to abandon all hope for the region.

>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.

	Israelies who are reluctant to abandon the Golan,
	without strong guarantees from Syria that the territory
	will not become a hostile promontory, are to be commended.
	Their caution tempers their enthusiam for peace, and the
	two will serve a foundation upon which treaties can be built.

	But those who refuse to compromise on this issue
	are as foolish children making fire in a field of dry grass.

>|> >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.

	There is no fighting strategy more clever or promised
	greater success than to feign weakness and tempt ones
	enemies to an attack which, had they know its futility,
	they never would have undertaken.  Israel did exactly
	thus in the 1967 war.  Your reference to this imagined
	innocence of the nation are as professions to
	the virginity of a matron and would have us think
	perhaps you describe the exploits a harlot.

>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.

	One of the Palestinians greatest handicaps is an American
	perception that should the peace process fail, the policy
	of terrorist attacks against American civillians and
	military personel will resume.  While this might seem
	to offer a bargaining advantage to the Palestinains,
	it will prove to be an albatross about their necks.

	Accusations of America's preferrential treatment
	of Israel are testimony to the tremendous ill will
	terrorism has generated.

>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.

	Which is almost as absurd as the source from which it was drawn.

>|> 	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.

	Only that which is Syrian and not Jewish land.
	The entirety (100%), I believe.

>|> 	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.

	I apologize if I have placed anything into your mouth
	which did not belong there.  The rhetorical questions
	were intended to gauge the depths of your determination
	to resist territorial compromise.

>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.

	Are such philosophical dribblings truly beneficial
	to this discussion, or are you simply filling in
	empty lines on the terminal?

>|> >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.

	You seem to see the peace process not a hope for the future
	but rather a convenient, temporary artifice through which
	Israel may profit and prepare for the next crisis.
	I must admit that I am not surprised by your cynicism,
	although I am certainly dissappointed.

>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.

	Yes, but as long as each side sees the conflict
	as the other's fault,
	they will likewise see the necessary compromises
	as the other's responsibility.

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

					Gerard
-- 

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

Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast