From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Fair Swap
Reply-To: Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 14:46:15 GMT

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.

|>  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.

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.



|>>|> 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. 


|>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.



|>>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.

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.


|>> 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.

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.


--

Phill Hallam-Baker
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush