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: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 19:09:13 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.084342.13379@discus.technion.ac.il>,
davidba@carmel.technion.ac.il (David Ben_Ami) writes:
|>Xref: dscomsa.desy.de talk.politics.misc:63862 talk.politics.mideast:43472
|>misc.headlines:15953

|>In article <1992Aug29.154905.5659@dscomsf.desy.de> Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
|>writes:
|>>In article <1992Aug27.202027.17895@bony1.bony.com>, jake@bony1.bony.com
|>(Jake
|>>Livni) writes:
|>>
|>>|>In article <EGGERTJ.92Aug25164553@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu>
|>eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu
|>>|>writes:
|>>|>>In article <BtJsL7.9yu@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> idfriedm@hertz.uwaterloo.ca
|>(id
|>>|>friedman) writes:
|>>|>
|>>|>>>     Israel has withdrawn from most of the territory.
|>>|>>
|>>|>>"Most" here is presumably defined by geographical area.  One could
|>>|>>easily well choose another measure, such as population or number of
|>>|>>holy religious sites, which would indicate that Israel has not
|>>|>>withdrawn from most of the territory.
|>>|>
|>>|>You illustrate here precisely one of the worst problems in such peace
|>>|>agreements, that of post-agreement re-definition of the terms.
|>>|>
|>>|>Who is to say that the Jordanians or others, perhaps with a
|>>|>democratically and newly-elected Islamic government, claim after the
|>>|>return of the vast majority of the West Bank and Gaza but not of
|>>|>Jerusalem that because Jerusalem constitutes over 90% of the land's
|>>|>holiness (as defined in the Koran, perhaps), that less than 10% of the
|>>|>peace should be given in return and that Israel will STILL owe them
|>>|>more.
|>>
|>>Occupying land in the fear of future invasion is not a sustainable long term
|>>policy. Sooner or later the balance of power will shift and the occupied
|>land
|>>will be the cause of an invasion. That is why to have peace the occupied
|>>teritories must be returned up to the very last centimeter.
|>
|>Your reason is ridiculous - if the balance of power changes and we
|>return the territories then the Arab side has MUCH MORE chance in 
|>"liberating" teh whole of Palestine. if we retain teh territories
|>we have a buffer zone that can hold them back. If we had returned 
|>Sinai and the Golan after 1967 (like in 1956) then we could have face
|>a total destruction in a 1973-style attack.
|>If one supposes Arab insincerity in the future - one should avoid 
|>giving up even the first centimeter.

The territories are no protection at all. With the exception of the Golan
heights there is no particular military value to any of it. Israel has borders
with both Jordan and Egypt with or without the territories. The Golan heights
had military value before the guided missile got onto the international arms
market. If Saddam can bomb Tel Aviv from Iraq then Syria would have no problem.

The territories also have a net negative military value. So long as Israel
occupies territory there is absolutely no possibility of outside assistance.

It is not a question of insincerity, if an unjust peace is forced then it will
not last.

|> 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.

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,
it is also declining in importance and where Israel is concerned running out of
patience. 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.

|>>Point of fact Jake, the Palestineans don't actualy have anything to give.
|>
|>Yes, they have - stop the violence in the territories, leave the
|>terrorist group of the PLO. Cooeration with Israel in economic and
|>humanitarian treatment of teh Refugees problem (not in the Right of
|>return pattern).

Shamir knew all about terrorist groups having lead one.

Why not in the right of return pattern? They have as much right to live in the
country of their birth as any other people.

Point of fact, the Palestineans don't actually have the money to solve the
refugee problem. It is the Gulf states that have the cash.

--

Phill Hallam-Baker
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42269 talk.politics.theory:3888 soc.culture.usa:6920 alt.conspiracy:10323