Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: BILL CLINTON ON ISRAEL AND THE MIDDLE
From: rivk@ellis.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis)
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 15:34:47 GMT
Reply-To: rivk@midway.uchicago.edu
 <1992Aug20.010138.25750@midway.uchicago.edu> <1992Aug20.162606.5941@ncrcae.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM>
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Aug20.162606.5941@ncrcae.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM> nabil@ncrcol.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (Nabil Idriss) writes:
>>
>>They haven't departed from this idea. It's still in the PLO charter,
>>in the regular statements issued by Hizbollah and Syria, and in the
>>statements made by more than half of the PLO statesmen I hear. Arafat,
>>immediately following his supposed "acceptance" of the existence of
>>Israel, followed it up in the Arab papers with something along the
>>lines of "No, no, no!! We do not recognize Israel's right to exist;
>>we have never said that." -- it's been posted here, along with the
>>paper it came from, but I don't recall what that was. 
>>
>
>I think some body asked a PLO official about the charter and the answer
>was that the previous charter has been cancelled. Why do you think then
>the present government declared that the no PLO contact law is stupid?
>would they have said that if the charter was still the same?

Because Rabin is bending over backwards to get everybody talking, at
all costs. I approve of this, for the most part -- I don't see anything
wrong with *talking* to anyone, no matter what they're doing... at very
minimum, it gets you more information with which to fight them later,
and you can always say 'no'. But the charter has definitely not been
cancelled -- and Hizbollah is still saying things like "the war will
not end until Israel no longer exists and every Jew in the world has
been annihilated."

>>>If Rabin was correct in what he said last week on MCcneil Lehrer news
>>>hour that he is prepared to offer the Palestininas a first step self
>>>rule and elections on the next peace talks, it would be a good time
>>>to end of boycott. I would prefer to see a final solution before the
>>>end of the boycott.
>>
>>I just love your terminology here. No doubt a "final solution" is
>>exactly what you'd like; unfortunately, we fight back these days.
>
>Nora, what is with you? last time you say nuclear weapons and now 
>you say we fight back. The final solution should be a Palestinian
>state ruled by Palestinians. Unless if you want the one state 
>solution which most Jews reject. We the Palestinians have a right
>as much as you have a right. We want our own president. We want our
>own country and this is the only thing acceptable. In other words,
>we are human beings just like you are. I composed of flesh and blood
>and I need to have a country. The Arab countries are not my country.
>If you don't want to give me my rights and want to fight back,then
>I have to fight back too.

I've gone on record as saying I support a two-state solution provided
I can get some kind of assurance that the new state's first priority
will not be to destroy the other one. I was referring to your use of
the same term the Nazis used to identify their plan to exterminate the
entire Jewish population.


>>I suggest you take this up with Jordan. What the Jordanians may do to you
>>is not Israel's responsibility.
>
>Right, but it is Palestine responsibility.

Okay. Palestine can do whatever it wants to try and make the Jordanians
behave decently toward them, and Israel will probably be glad to help.

>>>Iraq and Syria never had Nuclear weapons. I think this is the only mass
>>>destruction weapon nowadays. I don't think that chemical weapons are 
>>>mass destruction. Every country in the world will use them as a last 
>>>resort. 

Side note: chemical weapons may not be mass destruction (though they're
pretty damned nasty) but biological weapons certainly are.

>>Iraq doesn't have nuclear weapons because Israel took out their plant
>>ten years ago. No thanks to anyone else for that. And while every country
>>in the world will use them as a last resort, Israel included, Iraq and
>>Syria are likely to use them well before it gets to a last resort. Put
>>bluntly, if Israel has nuclear weapons you don't want them to use, you
>>can make sure they do not use them by refraining from invading their
>>country and threatening it with extinction. If Iraq and Syria have nuclear
>>weapons you do not want them to use, the only way you can prevent them
>>is for everybody to do exactly what they want you to, on every subject
>>and in every detail.
>>
>
>You are saying that? Who said few weeks ago that Israel is ready to use
>Nuclear weapons when we were discussing Jerusalem? Wasn't you?

Yes. Capturing or destroying a nation's capital qualifies as a last
resort. If somebody was on the verge of capturing Washington, do you
think the U.S. would use nuclear weapons?

You just haven't gotten it through your head yet that Jerusalem is the
capital of Israel, and will get treated like any other nation treats
its capital -- it's part of your regular "I don't like it, so I won't
acknowledge that it's true." This does you no good.

>Nabil Idriss

-- 
"Light one candle for those who are suffering pain we learned so long ago..."