From: perlman@qso.Colorado.EDU (Eric S. Perlman)
Subject: Re: Fair Swap
Followup-To: talk.politics.mideast 
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 16:45:10 GMT

Follow-ups on this article are directed to talk.politics.mideast, where
this discussion belongs.

In article <1992Sep4.122817.27057@dscomsf.desy.de> Hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>In article <1992Sep2.215428.25841@colorado.edu>, perlman@qso.Colorado.EDU (Eric
>S. Perlman) writes:
>|>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.
>
>This is however far outweighed by the political dangers that continued
>occupation poses.

Perhaps.  Suffice it to say, however, that such a danger *does* exist.
While I would very much like peace, the first thought for me is that
Israel, the Jewish state, must survive and remain strong.  For me, what
that means is that a middle ground must be sought, and compromises
reached on territories.  That does not mean all of the territories need
to be returned.

>|>>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.
>
>Yeah but also remember what it took to bring the US in, not a good thing to rely
>on US military assistance unless you have a mutual assistance treaty.

I didn't say anything about that; let's remember that in the 1930s the
US, like the rest of the world, was mired in the deepest depression of
this century.  It took the war to bring us out of it.  The deeper you
are in economic trouble - and the US was up to its neck in it during the
Great Depression - the less likely a country is to enter into an
overseas war.

>|>  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), 
>
>Yeah and whose capital got burned to the ground eh? Prey when did Canada become
>part of the US? 

Yes, Washington burned to the ground.  But the Brits didn't win that
war.

>|>the civil war, where it was the Confederacy(!) which got
>
>If you are going to count civil wars as "victories" then you are really scraping
>the barrel. Bit hard to lose eh?

I'm not counting it as a victory, just showing that turnabout must be
fair play...

>|> 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.
>
>Yep I am aware of that, still dosen't make it a realistic defense policy.

Why?

>|>>Given that even the UK can't guarantee her saftey without being a part of
>|>|>>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.
>
>What you don't think that Israel can be secure or don't think that anyone will
>come into an aliance?

No, you're misinterpreting me here.  What I mean is that you seem to be
saying that unless all the territories are returned there is no chance
of an alliance of any major power with Israel.  I believe, and both
history and current events support this opinion, that no such pessimism
is required, though a peace settlement with return of territories (but
not necessarily all territories) will help the situation.



-- 
"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