From: adam@endor.uucp (Adam Shostack)
Subject: Re: Anti-Arab racism on the net
Organization: Aiken Computation Lab, Harvard University
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 04:34:33 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.153542.10503@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edward G. Nilges) writes:
>In article <1992Sep24.190252.28367@das.harvard.edu> adam@sparkle.uucp (Adam Shostack) writes:

>>The Soviets had in 65 & 66, used their veto power to prevent Israel
>>from effectively raising the issue of terrorist attacks coming into
>>Israel with the UN.  The Soviets were then supplying Syria and Egypt
>>with large amounts of weaponry, and it is likely that the Svoiets
>>would have vetoed any Israeli resolution that would have addreesed the
>>issue.

>This is irrelevant to the fact that Israel did not have to engage in a
>pre-emptive strike,

Israel could have committed collective suicide, too.  That would not
make it right, nor intelegent.  Egypt committed an act of war in
closing the straits.  Egypt was the aggressor, and it violated its
international commitments under the UN conference on the Law of the
Sea:

"There shall be no suspension of the innocent passage of foriegn ships
through straits which are used for international navigation between
one part of the high seas and another part of the high seas or the
territorial sea of a foriegn state."

Israel was within its rights to use military force to force Egypt to
open the straits to its shipping.  Egyptian radio then broadcast
announcements of victory which conviced Jordan to enter the war.

>that defense is easier than offense, and that it
>misused the language by calling a war of conquest self-defense.

You clearly have no concept of strategy.  Defense is never preferable
to offense.  The golan is militarily useful.  Missiles don't conquer
territory. 

>>Every country on the planet ignores international law when it suits
>>them, and talks about how great it is whenit suits them.  Why should
>>Israel be any different?
>
>Because Israel expects an inordinate amount of moral and financial
>support from us Americans, that's why.  This support was gladly extended
>from 1948 to 1967 because at that time Israel tried harder to act in
>accordance with norms of international law (we'll ignore Suez; as I
>said, it tried harder.)

Ignore Egypts violation of the Suez canal treaty? Well, if you insist.
I should point out through, that American support was much greater
*after* 1967, when France cut delivery of arms Israel had purchsed.
The US saw an opportunity to sell weapons and took it.  The US did not
provide grants in the form of weapons until the 1973 Yom Kippur war.

>You can't have your cake and eat it too.  If you want to ignore
>Palestinian moderates in hopes of creating a demonized enemy and go
>about with a pistol, fine.

I am stillwaiting for the names of those "moderates," and the moderate
PLO factions you mentioned.

>But don't ask me for support, and DON'T call
>me an anti-Semite for treating you on a par with Syria.

Have I called you an anti-Semite?  If I hear something from you about
double-loyalty or blood, I may call you an anti-Semite.  But to date,
you just seem to be a left wing Arabist.

Adam



Adam Shostack 					adam@das.harvard.edu

What a terrible thing to have lost one's .sig.  Or not to have a .sig
at all.  How true that is.      
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast